GIFT    OF 
JANE  KoSATHER 


PRIZE  ESSAYS 

OF  THE 

AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION 


1907 


To  this  Essay  and  to  that  by  William  S.  Robertson  on  Francisco 

de  Miranda  and  the  Revolutionizing  of  Spanish  America, 

since  published  in  the  first  volume  of  the  Annual 

Report  of  the  American  Historical  Association  for 

1907,  was  awarded  in  equal  division  the 

HERBERT  BAXTER  ADAMS  PRIZE 

IN  EUROPEAN  HISTORY 

for  1907 


THE     INTERDICT 


ITS  HISTORY  AND  ITS  OPERATION 


WITH   ESPECIAL  ATTENTION  TO   THE  TIME   OK 

POPE    INNOCENT    III 
1198—1216 


BY 


EDWARD   B.  KREHBIEL.  Ph.D. 

INSTRUCTOR  IN  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO 


PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION 

WASHINGTON,   1909 


COPYRIGHT,  1909 

BY  THE  AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION 
WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 


Co 

THE  MEMORY  OF 
MY  FATHER 

CHRISTIAN  KREHBIEL 

(Died  April  30,  1909) 


253729 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION. 

THE  SCOPE  OF  THIS  ESSAY. 


CHAPTER  I. 
ORIGIN  AND  THEORY  OF  THE  LOCAL  INTERDICT. 

PAGE 

I.  Origin  of  the  interdict :  The  interdict  is  a  lineal  de- 
scendant of  excommunication         ...       4 

1 .  Use  of  individual  excommunication  in  the  early 

church     ......  4 

2.  Change  to  general  excommunication,  which 

a.  Grew  out  of  the  necessity  of  the  church.       4 

b.  Was   made  possible   by  the  decline  of 

Roman  law      .....       5 

c.  Was  made  common  by  the  Teutons    .  6 

3.  Faults  of  general  excommunication         .         .       7 

a.  Excessive  severity     ....  7 

b.  Injustice 7 

4.  Opposition   to   general    excommunication   on 

account   of    these   faults   produces   local 
general  interdict        ....  7 

5 .  The  interdict  develops  slowly  ;  it  is  long  con- 

fused with  other  disciplines     ...       8 
II.  The  purpose  of  the  interdict  is  that  of  an  adminis- 
trative order 9 

(v) 


VI 


CONTENTS 


III.  The  theoretical  effect  of  the  interdict  is  to  deprive  a 
district  of  one  or  all  of  the  following 

1.  Divina  officia,  which  include 

a.  Offertory  of  the  mass    .         .         .         .13 

b.  Canonical  hours        .         .         .         .          14 

c.  Sacramentals        .         .         .         .         .14 

d.  Services  performed  by  a  priest   .         .         15 

2.  Sacraments 15 

a.  Baptism  .         .         .         .         .         .         15 

b.  Confirmation       .         .         .         .         -15 

c.  Penance  .         .         .         .         .         15 

d.  Communion         .         .         .         .         .16 

e.  Extreme  unction       .         .         .         .         16 

f.  Ordination 16 

g.  Marriage 16 

3 .  Canonical  burial  .         .         .         .         .17 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  LAYING  OF  AN  INTERDICT. 

I.  Kinds  of  sentences 19 

1 .  Interdictum  latae  sententiae    .          .          .  19 

2.  Interdictum  ferendae  sententiae  .          .  19 
II.  Those  officials  can  lay  interdicts  who  have  their 

authority 

1 .  Jure  divino       .          .          .          .          .  .20 

2.  By  virtue  of  position  occupied         .         .  22 
III.   Causes  for  interdicts           .         .         .         .  25 

1.  Conditions  harmful  to  society           .         .  26 

2.  Conditions  harmful  to  the  church        .  -27 

a.  In  its  spiritual  interests  .         .         .  27 

b.  In  its  temporal  interests     .         .  .29 

3.  The  necessities  of  ecclesiastics         .         .  34 

a.  From  these  causes  developed  abuses  .     35 


CONTENTS 


vil 


IV.   Processes  of  issuing  an  interdict       .         .          .  37 

1.  Monition           .          .          .          .          .  -37 

2.  Citation        ......  38 

3.  Promulgation    .          .          .          .          .  -39 

4.  Publication  ......  40 

V.  Appeal 42 

VI.  Frequency  of  interdicts  .....  43 

VII.  Duration  of  interdicts         .          .          .          .  -44 

VIII.  Territorial  extent  of  interdicts           .          .          .  46 

IX.  Geographical  distribution  of  interdicts           .  .     48 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE  INTERDICT  IN  FORCE. 

I.  Means  of  enforcing  the  interdict    .          .         .  50 

1.  Appeal  to  religious  sensibilities  .          .         .         50 

2.  Administrative  measures        .         .          .  51 

3.  Punishment  for  non-observance  .         .         52 

4.  Reward  for  obedience  .         .          .          .          -54 
II.  The  value  of  services  performed  during  the  interdict      56 

III.  The  effects  of  the  interdict        .         .         .         .         58 

1.  On  services  of  the  church      .          .          .          -58 

a.  Marriage  .         .         .         .          .         58 

b.  Burial 59 

c.  General  ministrations         .          .          .         62 

2.  On  the  offender 63 

3.  On  the  public 65 

4.  On  the  church     .          .          .          .          .          .68 

a.  In  material  affairs     ....          69 

b.  In  degeneracy  of  clergy         .         .  .71 

c.  In  independence  of  people         .         .         72 

5.  As  reported  by  the  chroniclers       .          .  -     73 


viii  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  IV. 

MODERATION  AND  RELAXATION  OF  THE  INTERDICT. 

I.  Moderation  of  interdicts  by 

1.  Privileges 75 

a.  Those  which  forbade  the  laying  of  inter- 

dict          76 

b.  Those  which  exempted  from   interdicts 

laid 76 

2.  Ambulatory  interdicts 78 

II.  Relaxation  of  interdicts 81 

1.  Authorities  who  could  relax  interdicts     .         .81 

2.  Conditions  of  relaxation    ....         82 

APPENDIX. 
INTERDICTS  FROM  1198  TO  1216. 

I.  Threats  of  interdict 86 

II.  Possible  cases  of  interdict          .         .         .         .         96 
III.  Actual  cases  of  interdict        .         .         .         .         -99 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 164 

INDEX        .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .  175 


THE  INTERDICT. 
INTRODUCTION. 

THE  SCOPE  OF  THIS  ESSAY. 

IMPORTANT  as  was  for  centuries  the  part  played  by  the  inter- 
dict in  the  history  of  both  church  and  state,  no  book  has  hith- 
erto been  devoted  to  it.  Late  in  the  sixteenth  century  the 
French  jurist  Pierre  Pithou  attempted  a  survey  of  its  history 
in  his  essay  De  rorigine  et  du  progres  des  Interdicts  ecclesias- 
tiques ;  but  this,  though  able,  is  only  a  sketch.  In  1869  the 
German  canonist  Franz  Kober  published  in  three  successive 
issues  of  the  Archiv  filr  katholisches  Kirchenrecht  a  careful 
study  entitled  "Das  Interdict."  While  rich  in  information  re- 
garding the  history  and  use  of  the  interdict,  this  deals  mainly 
with  its  place  in  ecclesiastical  law.  In  1897  a  young  Amer- 
ican scholar,  Arthur  C.  Rowland,  submitted  for  the  doctor- 
ate at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  a  thesis  on  ''The  In- 
terdict, its  Rise  and  Development  to  the  Pontificate  of 
Alexander  III  ",  i.  e.,  to  1159.*  This  thesis  has  never  been 
printed;  but  in  1899  Dr.  Howland  read  before  the  American 

1  This  unpublished  thesis  has  through  the  great  courtesy  of  Dr.  How- 
land  (now  a  professor  in  the  University  of  Pennsylvania)  been  at  my  ser- 
vice throughout  my  study  of  this  subject.  I  have  further  to  thank  Professor 
Howland  for  magnanimously  surrendering  to  me  the  subject  itself  and  for 
putting  into  my  hands  such  unused  materials  as  he  had  at  his  disposal.  I 
take  this  opportunity  to  acknowledge  also  my  indebtedness  to  Dr.  J. 
Franklin  Jameson  for  aid  both  in  the  choice  of  my  subject  and  in  the 
preparation  of  my  dissertation;  and  I  sincerely  regret  that  M.  Achille 
Luchaire  did  not  live  to  see  this  published  fruit  of  his  kindness  in  lending 
me,  at  that  time  a  total  stranger  to  him,  the  invaluable  notes  made  by  him 
at  great  cost  of  labor  and  means  upon  the  letters  of  Innocent  III  found  in 
the  provincial  archives  of  France.  And  for  assistance  of  various  kinds  I 
vvi^i  to  thank  Professors  George  L.  Burr,  Charles  H.  Raskins,  Charles 
Gross,  Charles  V.  Langlois,  Paul  Viollet,  Ephraim  Kmerton,  and  James 
\Vestf all  Thompson. 


2  THE  INTERDICT 

Historical  Association  a  paper  based  upon  it — « «  The  Origin 
of  the  Local  Interdict ' ' — which  was  published  in  the  Associ- 
ation's report  for  that  year.  It  narrates  the  story  of  the  inter- 
dict to  1031.  Excepting  pamphlets  purely  polemic,  like  those 
called  forth  by  the  Venetian  interdict  of  1606,  and  narratives 
devoted  to  single  episodes,  these  few  studies  form  the  entire 
monographic  literature  of  the  subject. 

The  present  essay,  while  aspiring  to  serve  as  a  convenient 
introduction  to  a  knowledge  of  the  interdict,  attempts  no  ex- 
haustive treatment.  To  the  history  of  the  interdict  its  fresh 
contribution  is  only  a  sifting  and  use  of  the  materials  for  the 
time  of  Pope  Innocent  III.  Nor  is  it  meant  to  be  a  study  of 
the  canonical  law  relating  to  the  discipline — a  theme  adequately 
treated  by  the  canonists.  Its  aim  is  to  show  the  actual  use  and 
effects  of  the  interdict ;  and  by  "the  interdict"  it  for  the  most 
part  means  only  what  has  been  currently  known  in  history  by 
that  name — the  comprehensive  territorial  measure  known  to 
canonists  as  the  "local  general  interdict",  and  not  unhappily 
denned  by  an  American  newspaper,  in  a  recent  case  of  its 
employment,  as  "  a  general  ecclesiastical  strike  ".2 

*  The  local  particular  interdict,  differing  from  this  form  mainly  by  being 
limited  to  some  comparatively  small  organic  whole,  is  in  the  present  study 
treated  as  a  secondary  theme,  though  often  in  close  connection  with  the 
local  general  interdict.  The  personal  interdict,  whether  particular  or  gen- 
eral, receives  only  incidental  consideration  in  so  far  as  it  has  illustrative 
value.  Besides  the  local  and  the  personal  there  are  yet  other  forms  of  the 
interdict.  There  is  an  interdictum  totale  and  an  interdictum  partiale,  the 
former  being  a  perfect  or  complete  sentence,  the  latter  being  one  which 
prohibits  only  a  part  of  church  services.  Happily  the  distinction  was 
never  embodied  in  canon  law. — Kober,  XXI,  303-304.  The  "  ambula- 
tory interdict  "  is  a  much  more  noteworthy  and  a  by  no  means  infrequent 
form.  It  is  treated  at  length  in  a  later  chapter.  In  form  and  content  the 
ambulalorium  offers  nothing  new.  It  is  the  local  interdict  in  itinere. 
The  interdictum  propter  honor  em  resulted  if  a  bishop  officiated  at  an  altar; 
for  the  remainder  of  that  day  all  others  were  prohibited  from  celebrating  at 
that  altar.  Though  so  called,  this  was  not  in  reality  an  interdict. — Glosses 
upon  the  Pragmatic  Sanction,  cited  from  Pithou,  Des  Interdicts  Eccl,, 
23-24:  "Interdictum  propter  honorem,  ut  si  Episcopus  celebravit  in 
aliquo  altare,  de  tota  ilia  die  non  debet  alius  celebrare."  The  interdictum 
propter  horrorem  loci  is  an  unimportant  form  of  cessation  of  services. — 
Glosses  upon  Pragmatic  Sanction,  cited  from  Pithou,  Des  Interdicts  Eccl., 
23-24:  "Alia  [interdicta]  propter  horrorem  loci,  ut  si  excom.  sit  sepultus 
jn  ecclesia  v^l  coemiterio,  vel  ecclesia  polluta  sit  sanguine  vel  semine  ..." 


INTRODUCTION  3 

In  order  to  treat  this  theme  to  the  best  advantage  it  seemed 
advisable  to  make  an  exhaustive  study  of  some  typical  and 
reasonably  short  period  of  time,  the  sources  for  which  are 
abundant  and  comparatively  available.  The  pontificate  of 
Innocent  III  seemed  to  be  such  a  period.  The  plan  of  work 
has  been  shaped  by  the  purpose  and  the  material.  To  avoid 
constant  restatement  of  the  history  and  the  laws  relating  to  the 
interdict,  these  matters  have  been  briefly  treated  in  the  first 
chapter.  The  other  chapters  deal  with  the  actual  operation 
of  the  interdict ;  they  are  based  principally  on  material  from 
the  time  of  Innocent  III,  but  the  author  has  felt  free  to  insert 
information  from  other  periods  whenever  it  seemed  peculiarly 
apposite.  The  appendix  contains  a  chronological  list  of  inter- 
dicts from  1198  to  1216,  many  of  which  have  been  partially 
discussed  in  preceding  chapters;  partially,  because  the  devel- 
opment of  the  particular  topic  under  consideration  made  a 
longer  statement  of  the  interdict  at  that  point  inadvisable. 
But,  as  this  method  left  many  interesting  features  of  the  inter- 
dict unmentioned,  such  incompletely  used  cases  as  are  im- 
portant and  the  source  material  for  which  warranted  the 
procedure  are  set  down  in  full  in  the  appendix. 


CHAPTER  I. 

ORIGIN  AND  THEORY  OF  THE  LOCAL  INTERDICT. 

EXCLUSION  from  membership  in  a  religious,  as  in  a  secular 
organization,  is  a  procedure  well  authorized  by  universal  prac- 
tice. Israel  renounced  the  unfaithful,  the  Roman  state  inter- 
dicted the  traitor  from  fire  and  water,  and  the  Druids1  ex- 
cluded the  disobedient  from  any  share  in  religious  ceremony. 
The  early  Christian  church  for  the  purpose  of  self-preservation 
adopted  similar  measures ;  she  expelled  unworthy  members , 
and  called  the  process  excommunication.  The  use  of  this 
protective  measure  necessarily  increased  with  the  number  of 
Christians,  for  in  those  wholesale  conversions  of  the  first  three 
centuries  many  a  half-hearted  person  must  have  joined  the 
ranks  of  the  faithful.  Against  converts  of  such  a  character 
the  church  needed  protection,  especially  when  the  persecu- 
tions set  afoot  by  the  emperors  produced  denials  of  the  faith 
even  from  earnest  Christians.  Had  none  of  the  ranks  proved 
unfaithful,  however,  the  church  would  still  have  needed  pro- 
tection against  heresies,2  which  were  even  at  that  time  widely 
spread.  Having  no  legal  status,  hence  no  support  from  the 
civil  authorities,  only  one  resource  was  left;  she  must  cut 
off  from  her  privileges,  that  is  excommunicate,  the  offending 
individual. 

With  the  imperial  recognition  of  Christianity  (A.  D.  311 
and  313),  there  came  a  change  in  the  position  of  the  church 
which  gave  cause  and  opportunity  for  a  further  development 
of  her  polity.  The  legalizing  of  the  Christian  religion  gave 

1  Caesar,  De  Bella  Galileo*  VI,  13. 
2Schulte,  Kirchenstrafen,  I,  655. 

For  full  titles  and  descriptions  of  the  works  cited  in  the  notes,  the  reader 
is  referred  to  the  Bibliography  at  the  end  of  the  essay. 


ORIGIN  AND  THEORY  5 

the  church  a  reputation  to  sustain.  Christians  were  now  put 
on  a  level  with  their  fellow-men  •  would  they  prove  them- 
selves worthy  of  this  elevation,  or  would  the  removal  of  diffi- 
culties cause  the  saints  and  martyrs  of  former  years  to  be 
replaced  by  communicants  of  less  lofty  ideals?  Such  an  event 
was  undeniably  possible  ;  did  perhaps  result  to  some  degree. 
That  it  went  to  no  excess  must  have  been  due  to  great  effort 
of  the  church  authorities,  and  it  is  instructive  to  note  that  the 
same  century  which  witnessed  the  legalizing  of  the  church  is 
the  one  within  which  occurred  the  first  recorded  case  of  general 
excommunication,  a  censure  which  by  one  sentence  excluded 
a  group  of  persons  from  the  church/'  The  introduction  of 
this  new  form  of  censure  indicates  that  excommunication  of 
individuals  no  longer  met  the  needs  of  ecclesiasts,  and  that 
experimentation  for  a  more  effective  discipline  had  begun. 
Just  as  the  recognition  of  Christianity  was  followed  by  an 
extension  of  the  disciplinary  powers  of  the  church,  so  the  act 
by  which  Christianity  became  the  religion  of  the  state  (A.  D. 
392)  resulted  in  an  increase  of  those  powers,  and  general  ex- 
communication became  a  recognized  censure.  It  was  a  blood- 
less and  effective  weapon,  and,  in  so  far,  one  which  an  organi- 
zation based  upon  the  teachings  of  Christ  could  use. 

The  necessity  of  the  church  invented  general  excommunica- 
tion;  the  decline  of  Roman  law  made  it  possible.  The  spirit 
of  that  law  is  against  the  punishment  of  the  innocent,  and 
while  it  retained  its  vigor  a  censure  of  the  character  of  general 
excommunication  could  not  have  flourished.  Indeed,  so  did 
this  sense  of  justice  linger  that,  despite  the  decline  of  all 
Roman  institutions  in  the  fourth  century  of  the  Christian  era, 
the  first  case  of  general  excommunication  on  record  does  no 
violence  to  Roman  legal  principles.  In  this  case  the  censure 
was  put  upon  a  village  because  one  of  its  inhabitants  had  car- 
ried away  a  girl ;i  from  a  neighboring  place ,  and  because  this 

3  (a)  Hinschius,  IV,  804,  n.  10.  (b)  Rowland,  A.  H.  A.  Rep.,  1899, 
I,  433.  This  is  cited  as  an  interdict  by  Mr.  Rowland,  (c)  Kober,  XXI, 
4.  Kober  holds  that  this  is  not  an  interdict. 


6  THE  INTERDICT 

village  by  receiving  the  captor  and  the  captive  had  become  a 
participant  in  the  offence.  The  offender  was  punished  and 
others  were  involved  in  his  punishment ;  not  however  for  his 
fault,  but  for  a  lesser  fault  of  their  own  in  permitting  the  cap- 
tor to  keep  his  prize  in  the  village.  The  next  instance  shows 
a  greater  departure  from  the  principles  of  Roman  law.  Clas- 
sicianus,  a  Roman  official,  and  his  whole  family  (household) 
were  excommunicated  by  Bishop  Auxilius  for  seizing  an  of- 
fender who  had  sought  protection  at  an  altar.*  Not  many  years 
later  there  was  a  more  extended  general  excommunication. 
Andronicus,  governor  of  Pentapolis,  all  his  associates,  and 
their  families  were  excommunicated.5  In  neither  of  the  last 
two  cases  is  there  any  evidence  that  the  associates  made  them- 
selves responsible  by  any  act  of  their  own.  In  the  first  case 
quoted,  the  principles  of  Roman  jurisprudence  were  not  vio- 
lated; the  second  seems  to  depart  somewhat,  unless  it  is 
explained  on  the  basis  that  patronage  makes  every  client  a 
partaker  in  every  act  of  the  patron ;  the  third  case  is  not  at 
all  reconcilable  with  Roman  legal  principles. 

In  the  growth  of  general  excommunication,  the  necessity  of 
the  church  and  the  decline  of  Roman  law  were  no  more  potent 
than  the  advent  of  the  Teutons,  for  the  invaders  brought  with 
them  traditions  which  favored  the  censure.  Their  democratic 
institutions  made  the  clan  to  some  degree  responsible  for  the 
conduct  of  individuals,  a  principle  which  fostered  the  growth 
of  a  censure  involving  many  in  the  punishment  of  the  guilty 
one.  As  a  result  general  excommunication  spread  rapidly 
from  Roman  lands  through  Teutonic  countries,6  and  became 
the  most  commonly  used  and  the  most  powerful  weapon  of  the 
church. 

4  Letter  of  St.  Basil  in  Nicene  and  Post- Nicene  Fathers,  2nd  Ser.,  VIII, 
589-590.     Cited  by  Howland. 

5  Synesius,   Letters,  57,  58,  72,  89,  in  Migne,  Pat.  Gr.,  66.     Cited  by 
Howland,  A.  H.  A.  Rep.,  1899,  I»  433- 

6  (a)  Hefele,  Conciliengesch.,  II,  687-688.     Cf.  Hardouin,  Cone.,  II,  col. 
1053.     A  portion  of  Burgundy  was  censured  about  517  A.  D.     (b)  Greg. 
Turon.,  lib.  V,  c.  32.     The  church  of  St.  Denis,  Paris,  was  under  censure 
about  579  A.  D. 


ORIGIN  AND  THEORY  7 

But  this  weapon  had  two  great  faults,  excessive  severity  and 
injustice.  Excommunication  of  the  individual  was  bad  enough, 
for  it  excluded  entirely  from  the  church,  it  cut  one  off  from  all 
associations,  however  near  or  dear  or  necessary,  and  its  conse- 
quences pursued  the  unrepentant  sinner  even  after  death. 
Such  a  censure  made  general,  that  is,  extended  to  a  group  of 
persons,  a  church,  a  family,  or  an  organization,  was  entirely 
too  severe  and  unchristian.  If  this  penalty  had  fallen  only  on 
the  guilty  it  might  have  been  endured,  but  it  had  the  addi- 
tional fault  of  involving  the  innocent  in  the  extreme  punish- 
ment of  the  guilty.  On  account  of  these  faults  justice- 
loving  prelates  had  vigorously  opposed  it7  from  very  early 
times,  and  this  opposition  was  not  decreased  by  the  experience 
that  the  lesser  clergy  seriously  abused  general  excommunica- 
tion by  employing  it  to  advance  their  personal  interests.8 
Since  the  clergy  clung  so  tenaciously  to  their  most  effective 
weapon,  the  opposition  to  it  finally  resulted  in  a  moderation 
of  general  excommunication  into  the  local  general  interdict,9 
which,  if  equally  unjust,  was  at  any  rate  less  severe. 

This  moderation  was  a  very  gradual  growth,  produced  as  it 

7  (a)  Migne,  Pat.  Lai.,  54,  col.  635.     (b)  Letters  of  St.  Augustine,  No. 
250,  in  Migne,  Pat.  Lat.,  33,  col.  1066-7.     (c)  Viollet,  Hist,  des  Institu- 
tions Politiques  et  Administrative s  de  la  France ,  II,  294,  n.  2. 

8  Cf.  Rowland,  Interdict,  13-18. 

9  Kober  (XXI,    12)  supposes  that    the  local  interdict  may  in  part  be 
traced  to  other  forms  of  censure  besides  excommunication,  such  as  cessatio 
a  divinis  for  irregularity,  pollution,  honor,  or  any  other  cause  whatsoever. 
Originally  cessatio  contained  no  idea  of  punishment;   church  services  were 
merely  suspended  for  a  shorter  or  longer  interval.     Such  a  suspension,  be- 
ing at  first  theoretically  a  voluntary  act  of  all  concerned,  was  recognized  on 
all  hands  as  perfectly  legitimate.     Practice  nevertheless  permitted  the  use 
of  this  censure  at  the  command  of  the  proper  authority,  the  consent  of  the 
judges  being  merely  constructive  and  not   actual.     This  alteration  intro- 
duced  the  idea  of  punishment   and   thus  cessatio  became  a  mild  form  of 
discipline,  limited  in  extent  to  one  church  or  one   small  locality.     It  is 
Kober 's  view  that  by  a  logical  process  this  penalty  was  extended  to  cover 
larger  areas,  such  as  counties  and  duchies.     If  cessation  of  services  in  a 
church  or  a  town  is  right,  why  not  also  in  a  city,  a  diocese,  or  a  kingdom? 
Reasoning  of  this  sort  on  the  part  of  the  authorities  of  the  church  doubt- 
less tended  to  have  the  effect   for  which  Kober  argues.     It  is  nevertheless 
safe  to  say  that  the  interdict  was  derived  principally  from  general  excom- 
munication; and  that  the  expanding  of  the  idea  of  cessatio  confirmed  the 
discipline  thus  derived. 


g  THE  INTERDICT 

was  by  the  struggle  between  the  clergy  to  retain  general  ex- 
communication in  its  original  form  and  the  prelates  to  lessen 
the  severity  and  injustice  of  the  censure.  Just  when  the  first 
interdict,  as  we  now  understand  the  discipline,  was  promul- 
gated is  a  matter  of  unsatisfactory  debate  ,10  for  there  is  very 
little  that  really  distinguishes  one  discipline  from  the  other. 
The  interdict  is  less  severe  in  the  following  respects  :  some 
services  were  permitted,  a  man  was  not  cut  off  from  associa- 
tion with  his  fellow-men,  innocent  men  might  be  shrived  and 
after  death  at  least  be  free  from  the  injustice  of  this  world. 
The  interdict  is  always  territorial ;  that  is,  it  affects  all  persons 
within  specified  boundaries,  not  because  they  are  persons — for 
this  would  be  general  excommunication — but  because  they  are 
within  stated  limits.  This  characteristic  is  perhaps  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  unity  of  the  administrative  districts,  with  their 
civil  officials  and  their  bishop,"  superadded  to  the  Teutonic 
unity  of  the  clan,  tended  to  create  a  feeling  of  common  re- 
sponsibility, which  feeling  the  church  easily  turned  into  an 
acceptance  of  common  punishment  within  those  civil  bound- 
aries. As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  interdict,  from  its  possible 
beginning  about  600  A.  D.  to  its  adoption  by  the  papacy,1'2  at 
the  time  of  Leo  IX,  was  tinder  the  supervision  of  the  bishops, 
the  spiritual  heads  of  clearly-defined  districts.  After  this 
adoption  its  effectiveness  increased  with  the  increase  of  papal 
power. 

These  two  characteristics,  lessened  severity  and  territoriality, 
are  not  decisive  enough  to  make  identification  certain  in  every 
case.  So  intimately,  in  fact,  is  the  interdict  associated  with 
other  disciplines  that  it  is  difficult  to  determine  just  when  the 
word  is  first  used  in  its  present  meaning.  The  word  interdict 

10  (a)  See  above,  n.   7.     (b)  Hinschius,  IV,  715,  804-805;  V,  19,  n. 
13,— 20,  n.  i. 

11  Schulte,   Kirchenstrafen,    I,    655.       "  Jemehr    die    Theologie  voran 
schritt,  desto  bliihender  wurden  die  Irrlehren,  besonders  von  Seiten  ein- 
zelner  Bischofe,  mit  ihnen  die  Excommunication  en,  die  sich  schon  im  2. 
und  3.  Jahrhundert   auf  ganze  Diozesen   erstreckten,  weil  die  Glaubigen 
regelmassig  zum  Bischofe  hielten." 


ORIGIN  AND  THEORY  g 

is  derived  from  Roman  law,  and  was  first  used  in  the  sense  of 
a  prohibition.13  The  earliest  cases  cited  as  interdicts  are 
called  excommunications  in  the  sources;14  and  not,  indeed, 
until  the  adoption  of  the  word  in  a  technical  sense  by  the 
papal  chancellery  under  Alexander  II 15  is  there  any  regular  and 
consistent  use  of  the  word  even  by  officials.16  In  a  canon  of 
Innocent  III  n  the  interdict  is  described  as  cessatio  a  divine- 
rum  celebratione  or  a  divinis,  and  other  writers  of  the  same 
period  fail  to  distinguish  it  from  ban  and  excommunication.18 
The  usage  still  varied  in  15 8s.19 

Having  shown  that  the  emergence  of  the  local  interdict  as 
a  distinct  discipline  resulted  from  the  opposition  to  general 
excommunication  on  the  ground  of  its  excessive  severity  and 
injustice,  we  will  now  examine  the  various  theories  that  have 
been  advanced  in  regard  to  the  purpose  of  the  interdict.  It 
has  been  argued  that  the  interdict  was  intended  as  an  expres- 
sion of  disapproval  of  someone's  misconduct.'20  Instances  in 

12  Hinschius,  V,  24. 

13  P'or  example :  "  Quicunque  interdicta  despexerit  .  .    .   "  J-L.  (Jaffa's 
Regesta  Pontificum,  ed.  Lowenfeld,  Kaltenbrunner,  and  Ewald),  3383. 

14  See  the  lists  of  interdicts  given  by  Dr.  Rowland  and  others. 

15  Hinschius,  V,  22,  n.  2. 
16 Ibid.,  V,  21-25,  notes. 
"Ibid.,  V,  522,  n.  17. 

18  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  403.     Parma,  1198.     "  Cum  civitas  Parmensiset 
cives  ejus  excommunication!  subject!  fuissent  .    .       "     (b)  Teulet,  Lay- 
ettes, I,  372,  No.  973.     Toulouse,   1211.     "   .    .      quod  Tolosanos  cives 

.    .    .  excommunicationis  vinculo  innodarunt."      (c)  Chron.  B.  Iterii,  ad 
an.  1 212,  in  Duples-Agier,  Chroniq.,  86.     England,  1208.     "...  qui 
per   sex   annos   cum    tota   Anglia    fuerat   excommunicatus      .       ".     (d) 
Gall.  Christ.,  X,  ii,  col.  61-62.     Reims,   1235.      "  .    .       dicebat  .    .    . 
quod  .  omnes   cives   Remenses   excommunicaverat."      (e)   See   Hin- 

schius, V,  21-25,  notes,  for  further  information,  (f)  Miraeus,  Opp.  Dipl., 
I,  "97.  Cited  from  Raumer,  Gesch.  Hohenst.,  VI,  163,  n.  2.  "Concede, 
etiam,  si  inbannitur  terra  .  (g)  Annal.  Islandorum  Regii  ad  an. 

1208,  in  Langeoek,  Scr.  Rer.  Dan.,  Ill,  76.      "  England  i  banni." 

19  Mansi,  34!$,  1166.     See  also  Hinschius,  V,  522,  n.  17. 

20  (a)  Hinschius,  IV,  805,  n.  I.     Greg.  Turon.,  Hist.   Franc.,  V,  32,  in 
MGSS.  (Momimenta  Germaniae  Historica,   Scriptores],  Rer.  Merov.,  I, 
224-225.     A   brawl  in  a  church   caused  it   to   be   deprived  of  services. 
"What  was  the  intention  in  suspending  services  is  not  stated;   it  may  have 
been  what  Hinschius  suggests,  an  expression  of  disapproval  at  desecration 


I0  THE  INTERDICT 

which  this  is  true,  and  in  which  disapproval  of  an  act  is  the 
sole  purpose,  are  so  rare  as  to  be  negligible.  It  has  also  been 
stated  that  the  interdict  was  designed  as  a  mode  of  propitiat- 
ing an  offended  saint.21  A  forcible  objection  to  this,  however, 
is  the  fact  that  propitiation  of  saints  is  never  mentioned  in 
the  sentence  as  the  purpose  of  an  interdict.  The  theory  that 
the  interdict  was  intended  to  warn  the  faithful  from  future 
transgressions  is  untenable  because  of  lack  of  proof  in  the 
sources,  an  objection  which  applies  with  equal  force  to  the 
view  that  the  interdict  was  designed  to  secure  the  spiritual  im- 
provement of  the  offender  (poena  medicinalis) .  That  this 
last-named  purpose  was  sometimes  present  one  may  not  deny, 
but  it  cannot  be  considered  otherwise  than  incidental,  in  view 
of  the  evidence  that  another  object  was  uppermost  in  the 

of  the  church.  But,  in  the  absence  of  any  positive  statement  supporting 
the  contention,  another  explanation,  which  lies  nearer  at  hand  and  is 
better  sustained  by  the  source,  may  at  least  be  offered.  The  account  of 
the  brawl  is  followed  by  the  statement  that  the  matter  was  not  settled  until 
it  came  before  the  king.  He  submitted  the  case  to  the  Bishop  of  Paris, 
who  decided  that  the  desecrators  should  give  satisfaction  for  their  fault, 
and  should  then  be  readmitted  to  the  congregation.  From  this  one  may 
infer  that  securing  satisfaction  was  the  purpose  of  the  cessation  of  services, 
though  it  cannot  be  positively  established  in  this  case  because  the  time  of 
re-opening  the  church  is  not  mentioned,  (b)  Hinschius,  V,  19,  n.  13; 
Epp.  Hinc.,  3  and  4.  Hincmar  of  Laon  was  summoned  before  Charles  the 
Bald  to  answer  for  certain  actions  in  869.  He  left  orders  that  an  interdict 
should  be  laid  on  his  diocese  in  case  of  his  apprehension  and  detention. 
He  was  detained.  Hinschius,  in  opposition  to  Kober,  Hefele,  Dummler, 
and  others,  contends  that  this  interdict  was  not  a  punishment  but  a  reac- 
tion against  a  humiliation.  The  case  under  consideration  is  the  strongest 
one  known  supporting  Hinschius's  contention.  His  assertion  that  this 
discipline  was  not  a  punishment  is  well  taken,  but  it  does  not  follow  that 
it  was  primarily  an  expression  of  disapproval.  Bishop  Hincmar  certainly 
intended  to  procure  more  than  a  public  lamentation  over  his  misfortune; 
manifestly  he  hoped  that  such  an  action  on  the  part  of  his  diocese  would 
induce  the  king  to  release  him.  In  other  words,  the  interdict  had  the 
purpose  of  an  administrative  order. 

21  Hinschius,  IV,  806.  Hinschius's  reference  disproves  rather  than  sup- 
ports his  statement,  for  it  certainly  shows  that  propitiation  of  the  saint  was 
not  the  only  purpose,  as  he  himself  admits  in  a  foot-note  (i).  Indeed,  the 
source  says  nothing  about  propitiation  of  a  saint,  but  states  that  the  inter- 
dict should  go  into  effect  "nisi  cito  ornamenta  tabernaculi  huius  furata 
reduxeris  .  .  .  ",  and  implies  that  the  return  of  the  goods  made  the  interdict 
unnecessary.  It  cannot  be  questioned  that  the  purpose  of  this  sentence 
was  first  of  all  to  secure  the  return  of  stolen  goods,  and  that  other  purposes, 
in  this  case  inferential,  were  secondary. 


ORIGIN  AND  THEORY  !  j 

minds  of  authorities  laying  interdicts.22  That  punishment 
was  a  purpose  of  the  interdict  is  more  plausible  than  any  of 
the  motives  given  above.  It  is,  according  to  a  well-known 
writer,  a  test  of  an  interdict."  His  contention  is,  to  say  the 
least,  debatable.  If  the  interdict  was  a  punishment,  why  were 
offenders  obliged  to  do  penance  and  sometimes  undergo  long- 
lasting  effects,  after  the  sentence  of  interdict  was  removed?24 
And  can  a  sentence  which  acts  with  equal  severity  on  innocent 
and  guilty  be  called  a  punishment? 

The  best  test  of  the  purpose  of  an  interdict  is  the  motive  of 
the  judge  who  laid  it ;  and  fortunately  many  sentences  of  in- 
terdict give  some  indication  of  these  motives.  Such  sentences 
provide  that  they  shall  continue  in  effect  until  the  offender 
makes  proper  reparation,25  which  certainly  indicates  that  the 

22  Canonists  have  been  much  inclined  to  regard  not  only  interdict  but 
also  excommunication  of  laymen  as  a  censure,  that  is  a  poena  medicinalis, 
intended  to  secure  the  betterment  of  the  offender.     That  excommunication 
is  used  as  a  punishment  is  demonstrated  by  Hinschius  (IV,  747,  748  and 
notes),  who  however  admits  that  it  may  also  be  used  as  a  censure.     That 
the  interdict  was  regarded  as  medicinal  now  and  then  appears  from  a  letter 
of  Innocent  (Epp.,  X,  121)  rebuking  the  Templars  for  violating  interdicts, 
"  quod    ex    praesumptione    hujusmodi    contemnitur    medicinalis    poenae 
medela  ". 

23  This  seems  to  be  what  Hinschius  means  (V,  19,  n.  13),  and,  using 
punishment  as  a  test,  he  contends  that  the  interdict  was  not  known  before 
the  middle  of  the  tenth  century.     All  other  writers  accept  a  considerably 
earlier  date  for  the  origin  of  the  interdict. 

24  P'or  example,  see  the  shriving  of  the  murderers  of  the  Bishop  of  Wiirz- 
burg,  Appendix,  case  69,  in  which  case  the  penalties  touched  not  only  the 
criminals  but  even   their  heirs.     See  also  the  case  of  Oxford,  Appendix, 
case  81. 

25  An  examination  of  sentences  of  interdict  will  show  that  they  usually 
contain  the  phrase  "usque  ad  congruam  satisfactionem  "  or  words  having 
a  similar  purport.     For  illustration  of  this  see  the  letters  referred  to  in 
Potth.,  89,  91,  151,  277,  1160,   3814,  4736,  8572;   J-L.,  11891,  4536, 
5368.     Notice  particularly  the  case  of  Blois  in  the  Appendix,  case  77.     In 
the  very  note  in  which   Hinschius  (V,  20,  n.  i)  argues  for  the  view  that 
the  interdict  is  a  punishment,  there  appears   a  citation    which   militates 
against  his  argument.     It  is  ordered  that  the  interdict  laid  as  a  result  of  an 
attack  on  the  church  shall  last  "  usque  ad  legitimam  satisfactionem  vel 
emendationem  veniant  et  ipse  episcopatus  canonice  sit  redditus  ecclesiae 
generali  cui  a  deo  est  attributus  et  in   .   .   .  dicti  rei  de  me  Saulane  episcopo 
absolutionem  accipiant  ".     Punishment  may  have  been  the  purpose  of  this 
sentence,  but  it  is  contrary  to  ordinary  logic  to  believe  it  after  reading  the 
extract  just  given.     The  natural  conclusion,  and  the  one  which  explains 


12  THE  INTERDICT 

purpose  of  the  interdict  is  to  secure  compliance  with  demands 
made  by  the  church  on  some  offender  against  the  welfare  of 
society,  church,  or  priesthood,  or  against  the  laws  of  faith  and 
morals.  It  is  compulsion  by  a  form  of  passive  resistance.  It 
is  not  an  aggressive  act  and  not  a  punishment ;  it  is  a  defen- 
sive act  by  which  the  church  withdraws  from  public  service 
until  society  "  plays  fair".  Whether  the  sentence  operates  as 
a  punishment,  a  corrective,  or  has  any  of  the  effects  discussed 
above,  is  a  matter  of  indifference ;  the  main  purpose  is  the 
enforcing  of  church  mandates.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  in- 
terdict has  the  character  of  an  administrative  order,26  and  its 
purpose  resembles  very  strongly  the  purpose  of  an  embargo ,  or 
an  order  of  a  board  of  health.  These  have  in  them  no  design 
to  punish,  though  the  party  affected  may  suffer  greatly  ;  neither 
are  they  designed  to  procure  the  betterment  of  the  party  af- 
fected ;  they  have  a  purpose  beyond  either,  in  that  they  aim 
to  force  some  recalcitrant  to  yield  to  certain  demands.  The 
demands  enforced  by  interdict  had  one  of  three  general  ob- 
jects :  first,  to  promote  the  welfare  of  society,  either  as  a  whole 
or  in  some  part ;  second — and  this  is  most  frequently  the  ob- 
ject— to  advance  either  the  spiritual  or  the  temporal  interests 
of  the  church  ;27  third,  to  promote  the  welfare  of  ecclesiastical 
persons,  either  by  protecting  them  from  insult  and  injustice, 

everything  perfectly  well,  is  that  the  purpose  of  this  interdict  was  to  secure 
the  restoration  of  properties  and  rights.  I  have  found  only  one  case 
(J-L.,  5129,  5130)  in  which  punishment  was  the  only  object  of  an  inter- 
dict. See  below,  chap.  II,  n.  81. 

26  Hinschius,  IV,  804-805,  hints  at  this  when  he  declares  that  Kober  and 
others  have  mistaken  earlier  disciplinary  acts  of  the  church  for  interdicts, 
when  in  reality  they  were  only  administrative  orders.     He  holds  that  these 
are  not  interdicts  on  the  ground  that  they  are  not  punishments;  see  above, 
n.  24.     It  should  be  observed  that,  if  the  interdict  is  considered  an  admin- 
istrative order,  the  earlier  cases  are  to  be  considered  interdicts,  as  Kober 
regards  them,  though  not  punishments,  as  he  held  them  to  be. 

27  In  this  connection  it  is  well  to  note  that  excommunication  and  personal 
interdict  were  used  more  frequently  than  the  local  interdict  to  procure  ob- 
servance of  the  spiritual  demands  of  the  church.     When  severer  measures 
or  greater  pressure  were  necessary  to  procure  results  the  local  interdict  was 
put  into  requisition,  which  bears  out  the  notion  that  the  interdict  is  more 
truly  a  legal  or  administrative  measure  than  is  excommunication. 


ORIGIN  AND  THEORY  I3 

or  by  advancing  their  personal  or  corporate  interests.  The 
protection  of  churchmen  found  justification  in  the  canons,  but 
the  advancement  of  personal  interests  was  generally  regarded 
as  an  abuse  of  the  interdict  and  was  repeatedly  prohibited  by 
ecclesiastical  authorities.28 

Since  in  a  later  chapter  the  actual  effects  of  the  interdict 
will  be  taken  up,  it  seems  proper  to  complete  our  theoretical 
study  by  considering  the  laws  which  regulate  these  effects. 
Procedure  varied  somewhat  in  different  centuries ;  an  interdict 
of  earlier  times  was  in  some  respects  more  stringent  than  those 
of  later  times  :  hence  there  can  be  drawn  few  general  conclu- 
sions. Broadly  speaking,  however,  the  local  interdict  de- 
prives the  district  specified  of  some  or  all  of  the  following  :2!) 
officia  divina,  sacraments,  and  canonical  burial.  Officia  di- 
vina  (church  services)  include  the  offertory  of  the  mass,  ca- 
nonical hours,  sacramentals,  and  any  ecclesiastical  function 
which  can  rightly  be  performed  only  by  a  priest.  The  prac- 
tice with  regard  to  these  services  varies  so  considerably  that  it 
is  necessary  to  take  them  up  separately.  Mass,30  being  a  cen- 
tral function  in  church  life,  was  never  allowed  without  some 
limitations.  Even  after  permission  was  granted  by  Innocent 
III  to  celebrate  enough  of  the  mass  (that  is,  the  offertory) 
to  consecrate  the  elements  needed  for  viaticum ,  and  after  fur- 
ther modifications  were  granted  by  Gregory  IX  and  Boniface 
VIII,  the  ringing  of  bells,  open  doors,31  admittance  of  excom- 
municated or  interdicted  persons,  and  chanting  were  strictly 
prohibited.1"  The  service  was  to  be  recited  in  a  low  voice, 
and  though  that  part  of  the  mass  which  seemed  necessary  was 
allowed,  the  congregation  could  in  no  way  share  in  it.33 

2"  \Yith  this  bare  statement  of  the  objects  for  which  the  interdict  was 
used,  further  discussion  of  the  subject  is  postponed  until  the  causes  for  in- 
terdicts arc  considered. 

29  Kober,  XXI,  304^ 

80  (a)  Hinschius,  V,  525.     (b)  Kober,  XXI,  309. 

31  Kober,  XXI,  309.     Doors  were  closed,  not  locked. 

85  (a)  Hinschius,  V,  524,  n.  8.     (b)  Kober,  XXI,  309. 

83  (a)  Ibid,     (b)  Hinschius,  V,  524,  n.  9. 


I4  THE  INTERDICT 

Canonical  hours  are  fixed  times  of  the  day  given  to  prayer 
and  devotion.  In  the  middle  ages  these  hours  were  vol- 
untarily observed  by  groups  of  clergymen  who  met  in  the 
churches  for  this  purpose.  According  to  earlier  practice, 
such  common  observance  ceased  in  time  of  interdict,  and 
each  clerk  kept  the  hours  privately.3*  Time  brought  modera- 
tion. In  the  interdict  of  France,  1200,  clerks  were  allowed 
to  meet  outside  of  churches  for  canonical  hours,  but  no  lay- 
men were  permitted  to  be  present.  In  England,  1208,  the 
clergy  were  allowed  to  meet  in  churches  to  recite ,  without  any 
ceremony,  proper  parts  of  the  breviary ;  but  none  of  the  con- 
gregation could  be  present.  A  canon  of  Innocent  III  fixed 
the  rule  regarding  the  hours  for  conventual  churches.  Accord- 
ing to  the  provisions  of  this,  clerks  in  pairs  or  in  threes  were 
allowed,  not  to  chant  in  chorus,  but  to  read  the  hours  in  a 
voice  so  subdued  as  to  be  inaudible  outside  the  church ;  the 
doors  were  closed,  and  excommunicated  and  interdicted  per- 
sons were  excluded."5  Boniface  VIII,  among  his  numerous 
modifications  of  the  interdict,  decreed  that  canonical  hours  be 
kept,  and  that  clerks  be  compelled  to  be  present  on  pain  of 
losing  their  daily  distributions ;  the  rule  relative  to  voice,  pres- 
ence of  laymen,  and  open  doors  was  in  no  wise  modified 
except  for  certain  feast  days.36 

Sacramentals  are  rites  analogous  to  the  sacraments,  but  not 
included  among  them.  They  apply  now  to  persons  and  now 
to  things,  such  as  exorcisms,  consecrations ,  and  benedictions.37 
The  most  important  of  them  are  the  churching  of  women,38  the 
benediction  of  marriage,  of  holy  water,  and  of  ecclesiastical 

84Kober,  XXI,  318,  319. 

35  C.  ii.  X.  de  poenit.  et  remiss.  5.  38.     References  of  this  sort  are  of 
course  to  the  Canon  Law. 

36  (a)  C.  Ult.  de  sent,  excom.  VI.  5.  n.     (b)  Hinschius,  V,  527b. 

37  (a)  Hinschius,  V,  527.     (b)  Kober,  XXI,  319. 

38  Churching  of  women  and  benediction  of  holy  water  are  usually  spe- 
cifically prohibited,  other  sacramentals  receiving  no  mention.     This  does 
not  argue  that  the  former  only  were  denied,  but  rather  that  they,  being 
most  important  and  frequent  among  sacramentals,  in  a  sense  comprise  the 
whole  class. 


ORIGIN  AND  THEORY  Ig 

paraments.  These  were  forbidden  in  time  of  interdict  except 
on  feast  days.89  Other  ecclesiastical  services  performed  by 
priests  were  prohibited  unless  otherwise  stated  in  the  formulae 
promulgating  the  interdicts.  Preaching,  however,  not  being  a 
divinum  officium*  was  considered  a  perfectly  lawful  means  of 
securing  observance  of  the  interdict,  and  of  preventing  the 
moral  degeneracy  of  the  laity  ;  the  ringing  of  bells  was  per- 
mitted to  announce  sermons,  and  the  angelus  to  invite  Chris- 
tians to  private  prayer. 

Baptism,  confirmation,  penance,  communion,  extreme  unc- 
tion, ordination,  and  marriage  are  the  seven  sacraments  now 
generally  recognized  by  the  Catholic  church.  The  sacraments 
were  always  forbidden  in  time  of  local  interdict  unless  special 
permission  to  the  contrary  was  given.  The  extreme  severity 
of  early  interdicts  included  baptism  among  its  prohibitions. 
The  mitigation  dates  from  the  time  of  Hincmar,  who  granted 
baptism  to  children.  Since  it  was  not  provided  where  this 
baptism  of  children  was  to  occur,  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  it 
took  place  in  church.  During  the  interdict  of  England  ( 1 208) , 
however,  it  was  the  rule  that  baptisms  were  to  occur  in  private 
houses.  Boniface  VIII  granted  baptism  to  adults,  and  as  a 
consequence  of  this  privilege  it  is  likely  that  instruction  of 
catechumens  was  allowed.11  Confirmation,  the  complement 
of  baptism ,  has  been  treated  by  canon  law  exactly  as  has  bap- 
tism, and  their  history  as  affected  by  the  local  interdict  is  the 
same. 

Penance,  though  at  first  entirely  prohibited,  was  very  early 

39  (a)  Hinschius,  V,  527,  n.  9;    I,   165.     Laymen  preached  in  earlier 
times,      (b)  Kober,   XXI,   39-45.     On    the  feasts  of  Christmas,  Easter, 
Pentecost,  and  the  Assumption  of  the  Virgin,  services  with  open  doors  and 
the  ringing  of  bells  were  to  be  allowed,  interdicted  persons  being  admitted. 
But  those  who  were  responsible  for  the  interdict  were  not  allowed  to  ap- 
proach the  altar,     (c)  Const.  "  Ineffabile  ",  1429,  par.  3.      Cf.  Bullar. 
A'otn,,  IV,  732.     Martin  V,  in   1429,  extended  the  privilege  to  include 
Corpus  Christi  Day  and  its  octave. 

40  (a)  Cone.  Prising.,  1440,  c.  25,  in  Hard.,  IX,  1291.     (b)  Hinschius, 
V,  528f. 

41  (a)  Ibid.,  V,  528,  a.     (b)  Kober,  XXI,  20-25. 


1 6  THE  INTERDICT 

granted  to  the  dying.42  A  modification  of  Innocent  III ,  rarely 
heeded  by  judges  laying  the  sentence,  extended  penance  to 
all  with  the  provision  that  it  must  occur  in  the  hall  of  the 
church  or  before  the  building,  and  be  made  in  a  voice  so  loud 
as  to  be  heard  by  every  one  present.43  Boniface  VIII  char- 
acteristically allowed  penance  to  all  in  the  accustomed  fash- 
ion, with  the  exception  of  excommunicates,  those  persons  on 
whose  account  interdicts  had  been  pronounced,  and  the  parti- 
zans  of  interdicted  persons.44  The  offertory  of  the  mass  has 
been  discussed  under  the  head  of  holy  offices  ;  the  sacrament 
of  the  mass,  that  is  communion,  was  absolutely  prohibited 
to  all  in  good  health.  Exception  was  made  only  for  those 
constructively  in  articulo  mortis,  such  as  persons  about  to 
start  upon  a  long  and  dangerous  sea-voyage,  soldiers  about  to 
enter  battle,  mothers  in  heavy  travail,  and  persons  condemned 
to  death.45  Extreme  unction  was  always  forbidden  under  all 
circumstances  for  all  persons,  clerical  or  lay,  except  those  who 
had  a  special  exemption.'16  Ordination  is  not  separately  men- 
tioned in  decrees  of  interdict,  and,  since  no  exemption  is 
made,  it  could  neither  be  given  nor  received  in  interdicted 
districts.47 

Marriage  is  usually  not  mentioned  in  formulae  of  interdicts, 
and  hence  canonists  generally  have  inclined  to  consider  it  for- 
bidden. The  truth  is  that  marriage  itself  was  not  forbidden,48 
but  the  church  refused  to  participate  in  it  in  any  way.  When 
the  interdict  was  first  used,  marriage  was  not  a  sacrament  of 
the  church  in  the  modern  sense,  and  marriage  without  clerical 
assistance  was  valid,  since  the  consent  of  the  contracting 

42  (a)  Kober,  XXI,  325-327.     (b)  Hinschius,  V,  528,  c. 

43  Marine,  Thesaurus,  IV,  147.  44  Hinschius,  V,  528-529. 

45  (a)  Ibid.,  V,  529,  n.  8.     (b)  Kober,  XXI,  329-330. 

46  (a)  Hinschius,  V,  530.      (b)  C.  n.  X.  de  poenit.  et  remiss.  5.  38. 

47  Kober,  XXI,  330-332.     The  only  case  in  which  an  exception  might 
arise  would  be  if  the  number  of  priests  were  to  become  so  small  as  to  be 
insufficient  to  perform  those  rites  which  were  allowed.     But  in  such  a  case 
priests  could  be  ordained  elsewhere  and  imported. 

48  (a)  Kober,  XXI,  531-533.     (b)  Hinschius,  V,  530.     (c)  For  bene- 
diction of  marriage  see  above,  notes  37-39. 


ORIGIN  AND  THEORY  l? 

parties  was  the  essential,  and  the  benediction  of  the  priest  was 
a  desirable  though  an  unnecessary  ceremony.  If  then  the 
contracting  parties  observed  the  degrees  of  relationship  fixed 
by  the  church,  and  violated  no  other  rules,  a  marriage  could 
legally  take  place  in  time  of  interdict  without  any  ministration 
on  the  part  of  the  church.49  Usually  even  betrothals  received 
no  churchly  sanction  in  time  of  interdict,  and  the  dispensation 
by  which  Mauritius  of  Rouen  allowed  benediction  of  marriages 
during  an  interdict  laid  by  him  is  entirely  exceptional.50 
Rarely  was  marriage  forbidden  altogether,  as  it  was  by  the 
Council  of  Limoges  (1031)  and  in  England  (i2o8).51 

Christian  burial  was  usually  forbidden  in  interdicted  dis- 
tricts. At  the  time  of  the  quarrel  between  the  two  Hincmars 
apparently  all  burial  was  prohibited,  which  is  the  first  record 
of  such  a  privation.  The  modification  by  the  Council  of  Li- 
moges 51  permitted  canonical  burial  for  clerks,  beggars,  stran- 
gers, and  children  under  two  years  of  age.  Ivo  of  Chartres  ex- 
empted only  clerks  and  paupers  from  his  prohibition  of  burial 
in  the  interdict  laid  upon  Vendome.51  Thereafter  it  became 
the  common  usage  to  deny  burial  in  consecrated  ground  to  all 
laymen  who  were  not  fortified  by  some  privilege  ;  if  the  laity 
buried  any  dead,  they  were  forbidden  to  imitate  ecclesiastical 
rites  of  sepulture.  In  England  (1208)  all  burial  in  the  ground 
was  prohibited.32  Because  this  procedure  seemed  too  inhu- 
mane, because  it  was  unsanitary,  or  because  it  tested  the  faith 
of  the  survivors  too  severely ,  moderation  soon  followed ;  the 
method  employed  by  the  Archbishop  of  Rouen,  Mauritius, 
who  denied  laymen  burial  only  in  consecrated  ground,  and 
prohibited  the  subterfuges  by  which  all  laymen  had  secured 
burial  under  the  privileges  extended  to  paupers,  was  adopted.60 

49  Hard.  Cone.,  X,  1726.  "  Matrimonii  sacramentum  per  verba  de 
praesenti  tempore  interdicti  administretur,  benedictio  tamen  nuptialis  con- 
ferri  non  potest."  This  was  the  ordinary  practice  of  the  church  in  time  of 
interdict. 

"M'Achery,  SpiciL,  III,  615. 

61  (a)  Du  Cange,  G/ossar.,  under  "  Interdictum  ".      (b)  Goffridus  Vin- 
docin.,  Epp.,  lib.  II,  16,  in  Migne,  Pat.  Lat.,  157,  83. 

62  Inn.  Opp.,  IV,  190,  No.  136. 


l8  THE  INTERDICT 

Laymen  who  had  the  privilege  specifically  granting  the  right 
were  permitted  burial,  but  a  privilege  to  celebrate  officia  on 
certain  feast-days  did  not  include  the  right  of  canonical 
burial.53 

Clergymen  retained  the  right  of  ecclesiastical  sepulture  with 
some  limitations  from  the  time  it  was  granted  them  at  Limoges. 
Innocent  III  in  his  incomparable  severity  against  England  de- 
nied clerks  burial  in  the  ground ;  deceased  seculars  might  be 
enclosed  in  coffins  and  placed  in  a  tree,  or  on  the  wall  of  the 
church-yard.54  Later  he  sanctioned  the  procedure  which  al- 
lowed clerks  to  be  inhumed,  without  any  solemnities,  in  the 
cemetery  or  church,  on  condition  that  while  alive  they  had  ob- 
served the  interdict.55  No  bells  were  to  be  sounded  and  the 
service  was  to  be  a  silent  one,  though  the  worldly  pomp  and 
show  of  the  funeral  train  were  not  prohibited.56 

We  have  in  these  few  pages  attempted  a  resume  of  the  laws 
relating  to  interdict.  Whoever  desires  further  information  can 
find  ample  and  arid  reading  in  any  treatise  on  canonical  law. 
From  this  point,  happily,  our  course  leads  away  from  such 
treatises,  and  we  take  leave  of  them  without  regret,  though  we 
thankfully  sum  up  what  they  have  contributed  to  our  conception 
of  the  theory  of  the  interdict :  nearly  all  the  ministrations  of  the 
church  ceased  except  on  feast-days  and  in  case  of  privileges  ; 
preaching,  baptism  of  infants,  confirmation,  penance  of  the 
dying,  burial  of  the  clergy,  and  matrimony  without  benedic- 
tion were  usually  permitted  during  the  pontificate  of  Inno- 
cent III. 

63  (a)  The  right  of  burial  was  not,  as  a  rule,  denied  in  uninterdicted  dis- 
tricts to  the  dead  brought  from  interdicted  localities.  Kober,  XXI,  337. 
(b)  Because  burial  was  not  considered  a  part  of  the  officia  divina.  C.  3. 
X.  de  privileg.  5.33.  "Quod  si  Templarii  vel  Hospitalarii  ad  ecclesiam 
venerint  interdictam,  nonnisi  semel  in  anno  ad  ecclesiasticum  officium  ad- 
mittantur,  nee  tune  ibi  sepeliantur  corpora  defunctorum." 

54 Inn.  Opp.,  IV,  190,  No.  136. 

55  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  23  (Potth.,  1862).  (b)  Cone.  Colon.,  1270, 
c.  18,  in  Hard.,  VII,  834. 

66  (a)  Kober,  XXI,  333-341-     (b)  Hinschius,  V,  532. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  LAYING  OF  AN  INTERDICT. 

THE  purpose  of  this  chapter  is  to  show  exactly  how  inter- 
dicts were  laid.  It  will  include  an  enumeration  of  the  au- 
thorities who  laid  interdicts,  and  of  the  causes  which  produced 
them ;  in  addition,  the  processes  of  issuing,  the  right  of  appeal, 
the  frequency,  the  duration,  the  extent,  and  the  distribution  of 
interdicts  will  be  considered.  A  sentence  pronounced  by 
some  ecclesiastical  judge  was  interdictum  ferendae  sententiae  ; 
one  that  resulted  automatically  from  violation  of  specified 
canons  of  the  church  was  interdictum  latae  sententiae.  This 
form  resulted  from  unusual  offences,  and  followed  if  a  prince 
refused  papal  legates  or  nuncios  entrance  into  his  dominions,1 
if  cities  in  any  way  assisted  in  the  murder,  maltreatment,  or 
detention  of  a  cardinal  or  failed  to  punish  such  an  offender 
within  a  month,2  if  the  magistrates  of  a  city  or  locality  de- 
manded and  sought  to  collect  arbitrary  taxes  from  churches  or 
ecclesiastics,3  if  the  officials  of  a  city  in  which  the  pope  died 
hindered  the  observance  of  the  rules  fixed  by  the  Council  of 
Lyons  for  papal  elections,4  if  clerks  or  prelates  allowed  strangers 
to  do  usurious  business  upon  their  lands ,  and  remained  unre- 
pentant for  more  than  a  month,5  and  if  cities  or  localities  were 
responsible  or  showed  any  sympathy  for  the  detention  or  other 
misuse  of  a  bishop.6 

Interdicts  ferendae  sententiae  were  promulgated  by  those 

1  C.  unic.  de  consuet.  Extrav.  comm.  i.  i. 

2C.  5.  de  poenis  VI.  5.  9. 

SC.  4.  de  cens.  VI.  3.  20. 

*C.  3.  de  elect.  VI.  1.6. 

5C.  i.  de  usur.  VI.  5.  5. 

6  C.  I.  de  poenis  in  Clement.  5.  8. 

(19) 


20  THE  INTERDICT 

church  authorities  whose  official  capacity  was  derived  jure 
divino,  that  is,  from  inherent  authority,  or  from  the  powers 
given  by  law  to  incumbents  of  specified  offices,  or  from  a  tem- 
porary delegation  of  power  by  some  sufficient  authority.7  The 
pope  and  bishops  laid  interdicts  by  virtue  of  inherent  author- 
ity. It  follows  by  corollary  that  councils  and  synods,  being 
conventions  of  bishops,  had  like  authority.  The  pope's  au- 
thority to  interdict  extended  over  the  whole  church ;  he  exer- 
cised this  power  personally,8  or  instructed  legates,9  bishops,10 
chapters,11  abbots,  or  any  lesser  officials,12  to  publish  a  sentence 
in  his  stead.  Episcopal  interdicts  were  pronounced  by  the 
archbishops  or  bishops  themselves  or  by  their  vicars  upon 

7  Kober,  XXII,  3-4. 

8  (a)Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XI,  143  (Potth.,  3501).     Narni,  1208.  "  .    .    .  nos 
[Innocent]  .    .    .  civitatem   ipsorum   .    .    .   subjicimus   interdicto  ..." 

(b)  Inn.    Ill,    Epp.,  X,    143  (Potth.,  3205).     Lands  of   Callus,   1207. 
"...  sententias   excom.    et   interdict!   latas  auctoritate  nostra  ..." 

(c)  J-L.,  4793  (3557)-     (d)  J-L.,  5685  (4259)-     (e)  J-L.,  6294.     ff) 
J-L.,  6677.     (g)  J-L.,  6981  (5095).     (h)  J-L.,  7144.     (i)  J-L.,  11489 
(7678).     (j)  J-L.,  12755.     (k)  J-L-  13710(8813).     (1)  J-L.,  13628. 
(m)  J-L.,  16357.     (n)  J-L.,  16765.     (o)  Leo  Marsicanus,  Chron.  Mon. 
Cas.,    lib.  II,    c.   78,  in  MGSS.,  VII,  683.     (p)  Mansi,   Cone.,  XXI, 
67-70.     (q)  Diceto,  in  Rec.  (Recueil  des  Historiens  des  Gaules],  XIII, 
183.      Cf.  Hinschius,    V,    25,    n.   7.     (r)   Pflugk-Httg.,  Ada,  III,  317, 
332-333.     (s)  J-L.,  3012,  3046,  3089,  3090,  3304.     Laid  by  John  VIII. 
(t)   J-L.,  4536,  laid  by  Alexander  II;   J-L.,  5368,  laid  by  Urban  II; 
J-L.,  8186  (5831),  laid  by  Innocent  II.       (u)  Jaffe,  Bibl.  Rer.  Ger.,  II, 
108,  laid  by  Adrian  IV.     (v)  Ryccardus  de  S.  Germ.,  Chron.  ad  an.  1211, 
in  MGSS.,  XIX,  334,  laid  by  Innocent  III;  etc.,  etc. 

9  (a)  J-L.,  7202  (5208).     (b)  J-L.,  9369  (6510).     Rowland,  case  No. 
71.     (c)  J-L.,  11677  (7801).     A  threat,     (d)  J-L.,  11847.     (e)  J-L., 
15704.     (*)  J-L-,    5517   (4129).     Rowland,   case   No.  43.     (g)  J-L., 
6926  (5062).     Rowland,  case  No.  58.     (h)  J-L.,  8647  (6093).     Local 
particular. 

10  (a)  J-L.,  5746.     Rowland,  case  No.  48.     (b)  J-L.,  8540  (6040). 
Rowland,  case  No.  66.     (c)  J-L.,  10479  (7°78).     Rowland,  case  No. 
73«      (d)    J-L.,    17434.      (e)    Potth.,    1269.     France,     1200.      (f)    W. 
Canterb.,  Vita  S.  Thomae,  in   Mat.  Hist.  Becket  (Rolls  Series],  I,  71. 
(g)  J-L-,  9554   (6630),   11254  (7512).     Personal,     (h)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp., 
I,   24  (Potth.,  29).     (i)   Inn.   Ill,  Epp.,  VII,  163  (Potth.,  2338).     (j) 
Inn.   Ill,  Epp.,  XI,  87  (Potth.,  3418).     (k)   Inn.   Ill,  Epp.,  XVI,  98 
(Potth.,  4798).     (1)  Hist.  gen.  de  Languedoc,  IX,  190-192  and  note. 

11  (a)  J-L.,  14011.     (b)  J-L.,  17128  (10479). 

12  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XIV,  126  (Potth.,  4332).     The  Abbot  of  St.  Victor 
and  others  were  authorized  to  lay  interdict. 


THE  LA  YING  OF  AN  INTERDICT  2 1 

direct  command  from  them ; ls  u  15  the  confirmation  of  the 
pope  1S  was  often  sought  for  these  interdicts  and  was  sometimes 
granted.  The  interdicting  power  of  the  bishops  had  several 
limitations :  First,  it  was  limited  by  the  boundaries  of  the 
bishoprics  with  the  following  exception  :  if  a  part  of  an  inter- 
dicted city  or  its  suburbs  lay  in  another  jurisdiction,  the 
bishop's  authority  extended  into  the  neighboring  jurisdiction 
to  the  extent  of  that  city.17  A  special  grant  from  Innocent  III 
extended  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  Metz  over  other 
dioceses;18  in  this  case,  however,  the  power  was  delegated 
and  not  strictly  episcopal.  An  archbishop's  jurisdiction  was 
limited  to  his  own  diocese ;  he  could  put  one  of  his  bishops 
under  personal  interdict,  but  this  power  was  taken  away  from 
him  by  the  Council  of  Trent19  and  given  to  the  synod.  The 
order  of  the  Archbishop  of  Milan  to  the  Bishop  of  Lodi  to  put 

13  (a)  J-L.,  6483.  (b)  J-L.,  9319  (6472).  Rowland,  case  No.  70. 
(c)  J-L.,  10827  (7260).  (d)  J-L.,  11197.  (e)  Potth.,  10020.  (f) 
Lambert  v.  Hersfeld,  Annal.,  in  MGSS.,  V,  21  iff.  (g)  J-L.,  17016. 
(h)  J-L.,  17569(10657). 

ura)  Greg.  Turon,  Hist.,  VIII,  31.  Rowland,  case  No.  8.  Kober, 
XXI,  6-8,  considers  this  the  first  clear  case  of  interdict,  (b)  J-L.,  8221 
(5816).  (c)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VIII,  213  (Potth.,  2675).  (d)  J-L-,  8940 
(6253). 

15  (a)   Prov.  Cone.  Trev.,   1238,  c.   3,  in  Mansi,  XXIII,  479.      "Si 
raptor  excom.  fuerit,  vel  terra  ejus  interdicta  ab  ordinario  unius  diocesis 
..."      (b)   Cone.    Mexican.  Prov.,    1585,   lib.   II,  tit.  VII,  c.   5,  in 
Aguirre,    Cone.  Hisp.>  VI,    in.      "  Itidem  interdicitur,  ne  Officiales  et 
Judices    Metropolitanorum  et  excom.,  suspensionis  et  interdict!  censuras 
decernant  contra  Episcopos  Suffraganeos." 

16  (a)   J-L.,   9975   (6834).      (b)  Mat.  Hist.  Becket    (R.  Str.\  VII, 
477-478.     (c)  Chron.  Vezeliacense  ad  an.  1250,  in  Labbe,  Nova  Bibl.^ 
I.  397-398.      (d)   J-L,  9343   (6487).      (e)   Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XII,   144 
(Potlh.,  3844).     (f)  Gest.  Hen.  II  (R.  Ser.),  I,  119.     Confirmation  is 
sought,     (g)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XVI,  98  (Potth.,  4798).     Confirmation  is 
sought. 

17  (a)  C.   17.  de  sent,  excom.  VI.  5.  II.      (b)  Bibl.  Nat.,  MS.  Lat. 
15415,  fol.  232,  col.  4,  Cause  xxii°.     *' Si  civitas,  castrum  aut  villa  subi- 
ciantur  ecclesiastico  interdicto,   illorum  suburbia   et   continentia   edificia 
.   .   .  intelliguntur  interdicta." 

18  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XV,   187   (Potth.,  4610).     This  bull  gives  Conrad, 
Bishop  of  Metz  and  imperial  chancellor,  the  privilege  of  using  ecclesiasti- 
cal censures  against  malefactors  of  the  church  in   any  diocese,  if  the  resi- 
dent bishop  on  request  does  not  do  his  duty. 

19  Kober,  XXII,  6-8. 


22  THE  INTERDICT 

the  city  of  Lodi  under  an  interdict  was  unique  and  contrary  to 
accepted  laws.20  Second,  canon  law  required  the  bishops  to 
secure  the  assent  of  their  chapters  before  issuing  an  interdict ; 21 
this  law  was  not  heeded  by  the  bishops  and  the  rule  was  abro- 
gated. Third,  upon  papal  order  it  sometimes  happened  that 
a  bishop  lost  his  prerogative  of  laying  interdicts  unless  he  had 
permission  from  the  pope  or  his  authorized  agent.22  Inter- 
dicts by  council  or  synod  were  few.  The  decision  of  the 
Council  of  Dijon  in  1197  to  put  France  under  an  interdict23 
was  merely  confirmatory  of  a  papal  order,  and  was  doubtless 
designed  to  give  the  threat  an  appearance  of  unanimity  on  the 
part  of  the  clergy.  Interdicts  laid  by  provincial  synods  were 
more  frequent  than  those  laid  by  general  councils.24 

With  the  growth  of  the  church  there  appeared  a  number  of 
authorities  who  laid  interdicts  by  virtue  of  the  position  they 
occupied.25  Before  the  Council  of  Trent  legates  and  nuncios 
had  unlimited  power  to  lay  interdicts  within  their  jurisdictions  ; 
that  council  deprived  them  of  the  right 26  and  they  could  act 
only  in  pursuance  of  a  special  mandate  of  the  pope — that 
is ,  they  had  only  delegated  authority.  Originally  archdeacons 
and  archpresbyters  had  no  right  to  lay  interdicts  except  on 
delegated  authority ;  but  in  the  course  of  time  they  developed 
a  jurisdiction  which  was  recognized  by  the  church  until  the 
Council  of  Trent  took  it  from  them.27  Cardinals  interdicted 

20J-L.,  14801. 

11  (a)  C.  i.  X.  de  excess,  praelat.  5.31.  (b)  C.  4.  5.  X.  de  his.  quae 
fiunt  a  praelat.  3.10. 

22  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  137  (Potth.,  151). 

23  Lebeuf,  Mlm.  Dioctse  d'Auxerre,  I,  360-361. 

84  fa)  Ree.t  X,  412.  Rowland,  case  No.  17.  (b)  Richerus,  Hist.,  in 
MGSS.,  Ill,  634,  635,  664.  Rowland,  case  No.  16.  (c)  Mansi,  Cone., 
XIX,  865,  and  Chron.  S.  Vincentii  Vulturnens.,  in  Mur.,  Rer.  It.  Scr., 
I,  ii,  514.  This  case  is  called  excommunication  in  the  source,  but  is  very 
clearly  an  interdict.  Cf.  Hefele,  Conciliengesch. ,  IV,  792.  (d)  Annal. 
Benevent.  ad  an.  noo,  in  MGSS.,  Ill,  183.  (e)  Mansi,  Cone.,  XXII, 
9,  c,  2. 

«  Kober,  XXII,  8ff. 

2«  (a)  J-L.,  15704.     (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  461  (Potth.,  473). 

27  (a)  C.  54.  par.  4.  X.  de  elect.  I.  6.     (b)  C.  3.  X.  de  poenis  5.  37. 


THE  LAYING  OF  AN  INTERDICT  23 

the  churches  the  titles  of  which  they  bore.28  Heads  of  mon- 
asteries,29 though  they  had  the  right  to  use  local  interdict  over 
places  subject  to  their  jurisdiction,  rarely  exercised  this  power, 
and  thereby  avoided  conflict  with  their  bishops.  Their  powers 
being  mainly  over  regulars,  they  usually  contented  themselves 
with  the  personal  interdict.  In  some  monasteries  the  brethren 
seem  to  have  shared  the  right  of  interdicting  with  their 
heads,30  or  to  have  had  an  independent  right.  There  is  evi- 
dence that  even  deans31  and  prevots32  issued  interdicts.  The 
majority  of  canonists  agree  that  a  priest  cannot  lay  an  inter- 
dict ;  occasionally  a  priest  laid  a  personal  interdict,  but  even 
this  power  rested  on  an  unusual  custom  of  the  parish  or  upon 
special  authorization  from  a  bishop. 

Chapters  laid  interdicts  under  two  conditions.83  First,  they 
had  independent  jurisdiction  over  the  property  which  they 
held,  and  in  matters  touching  these  possessions  they  claimed 
the  right  to  lay  interdicts.  But,  as  a  rule,  they  had  little  oc- 
casion to  use  this  right,  for  they  found  that  a  local  particular 
interdict  laid  on  their  cathedral  was  adequate  to  prevent  the 

(c)  C.  3.  X.  de  offic.  jud.  ordinar.  I.  31.  This  gives  the  archpresbyter 
the  right  to  lay  interdict,  (d)  Marlot,  Hist,  de  Reims,  III,  623.  An 
archdeacon  laid  an  interdict  during  an  archiepiscopal  vacancy. 

28  Kober,  XXII,  8ff. 

19  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XV,  144  (Potth.,  4551).  An  interdict  by  the 
abbot  of  La  Charite.  (b)  Arch,  depart,  de  1'Oise  (Beauvais),  H.  2143. 
(Inventaire  de  litres  de  S.  Corneille  de  Compiegne.)  This  is  a  bull  of  In- 
nocent III  addressed  to  the  ecclesiastics  of  Compiegne,  commanding  them 
under  pain  of  excommunication  to  observe  the  interdicts  and  censures 
which  the  abbot  of  S.  Corneille  might  issue,  (c)  J-L. ,  11582  (7743). 

30  J-L.,  12551.     The  Brethren  of  Malmesbury  are  allowed  to  use  inter- 
dict. 

31  Cartulaire  de  Montieramey,  No.  249,  in  Coll.  des  princip.  Cartul.  du 
dioctse  de  Troyes,  252. 

82  Marlot,  Hist,  de  Reims  >  I,  361.     This  is  an  interdict  of  Reims  by  the 
prevdt  Miles  de  Nanteuil. 

83  (a)  Rec. ,  XV,  876.     The  canons  of  Soissons  claimed  the  right  to  lay 
interdict,      (b)  J-L.,  16303.     (c)  C.  5.  X.  de  consuet.  1.4.     The  chapter 
of  Le  Mans  claimed  the  power  of  interdicting  the  city,      (d)  C.  23.  X.  de 
verb,  signif.  5.  40.     The  canons  of  Chartres  placed  an  interdict  on   the 
possessions  of  the  Countess  of  Blois.      (e)  J-L.,   10372  (7027),   13244, 
I3597-     Chapter  is  given  the  right  to  lay  interdict,     (f)  Marlot,  Hist,  de 
Reims,  III,  572.     An  interdict  is  laid  by  a  chapter. 


24  THE  INTERDICT 

retention  of  the  chapter's  revenues,84  to  punish  an  offender 
against  the  chapter,35  and  to  resist  successfully  a  bishop.88 
Sometimes  chapters  even  compelled  bishops  to  admit  that 
cessation  of  services  in  the  cathedral  obliged  all  conventual 
and  parochial  churches  to  a  partial  observance  of  such  an 
interdict.  In  Reims,  for  instance,  the  canons  secured  a  sin- 
gular arrangement  from  their  archbishop  :  he  agreed  that,  when 
for  any  good  cause  the  services  of  the  cathedral  were  suspended, 
services  in  all  other  churches  should  cease .3T  The  abuses  of 
this  independent  power  caused  various  limitations  to  be  placed 
upon  chapters.38  Second,  in  case  of  an  episcopal  vacancy  the 
chapter  exercised  the  functions  of  a  bishop  and  laid  inter- 

84  (a)  Gall.  Christ.,  XI,  50!,  and  Chron.   Rothomag.   ad  an.  1211,  in 
Labbe,  Nova  Bill.,  I,  372.     The  chapter  of  Rouen  interdicted  the  cathe- 
dral because  the  archbishop  retained  revenues  belonging  to  the  canons, 
(b)  Cone.  Mogunt. ,  1261,  c.  19,  in  Harzheim,  Cone.  Germ.,  Ill,  6oof. 

85  fa)    Cone,   apud  Vallem  Guidonis,   1242,  c.  6,  in   Hard.,  VII,  349. 
(b)  C.    2.   X.  de  his,  quae  fiunt  a  major  part,  capit.  3.   n.     (c)  Cone. 
Lugd.  II,  1274,  c.  17,  in  Hard.,  VII,  712.       (d)    C.  2.  de  offic.  ordinar. 

VI.  i.  16. 

86  fa)  Cone.  Later.,  1215,  c.  7,  in  Hard.,  VII,  523.       (b)  C.   13.  X. 
de  offic.  jud.  ordinar.  1.31.       (c)  Cone.  Compediens.,   1277,  in  Hard., 

VII,  751.     The  bishops  unite  to   resist  aggression  of  the  chapters.     Cd) 
C.  8.  de  offic.  ordinar.  VI.  i.  16.       Boniface  VIII  found  conditions  result- 
ing from  use  of  interdicts  by  chapters  against  bishops  so  bad  that  he  re- 
served  to  the  apostolic  see  the   decision   in  such  matters,     (e)  Marlot, 
Hist,  de  Reims,  III,  573,  821-823,  No-  l82- 

87  fa)  Ibid.*  806,  773.      Cf.  Archives  Adm.  Reims,  I,  431.      (b)  Bibl. 
de  Cambrai,  MS.  No.  1151  (1028),  fol.  LXV.     "  .    .    .  serie  d'actes  sur 
les  rapports  du  chapitre  cathedral  avec  I'e've'que  et  avec  les  autres  6glises 
de  Cambrai,  notamment  sur  son  droit  de  faire  suspendre  les  services  divins 
dans  toutes  les  6g1ises  de  la  ville."     Cited  from  Catal.  gen.  des  MSS.  des 
Bibl.  Publ.  de  France,  Cambrai,  p.  445. 

88  fa)  C.  2.  X.  de  his,  quae  fiunt  a  major  part,  capit.  3.  n.     An  inter- 
dict should  be  laid  only  by  all  the  canons  with  the  consent  of  the  bishop, 
(b)  Cone.  Lugd.  II,   1274,  c.   17,  in  Hard.,    VII,    712.     This  decrees 
that  in  case  a  chapter  lavs  an  interdict  it  must  issue  a  statement  containing 
the  cause,     (c)  Arch,  depart,  de  1'Aisne  fLaon),  G.  i,  cited  in  Inventaire 
sommaire  .    .    .  ,    III,    I.       "  Le     Pape    Innocent    III     s'addressant    & 
R[enaud],  eVSque  de  Noyon,  le  blame  d'avoir  autoris6  son  chapitre  & 
lancer  1'excommunication  et  1'interdit  et  decide  que  le  droit  d'excom.  et 
interdit  ne  peut  Stre  exerc6  que  par  les  eVSques."     Aside  from  the  fact 
that  Renaud  was  not  bishop  of  Noyon  during  the  pontificate  of  Innocent 
III,  this  statement  is  difficult  to  reconcile  with  the  practice  of  the  time  in 
which  it  purports  to  have  been  issued. 


THE  LA  YING  OF  AN  INTERDICT  2$ 

diets. w  The  Council  of  Trent  made  it  a  rule  that,  within 
eight  days  after  the  death  of  a  bishop,  the  chapter  should 
elect  a  vicar  to  perform  episcopal  functions  ;  hence  the  capit- 
ular vicar  could  lay  interdict  in  episcopal  vacancy.  The  in- 
quisition could  lay  an  interdict,40  and  the  state  also  appears  to 
have  had  some  share  in  the  power  of  laying  interdicts.  Louis 
IX  agreed  to  use  temporal  power  to  enforce  interdicts  only 
when  the  state  had  shared  in  issuing  the  sentence,  or  could 
see  some  good  reason  for  confirming  it.41  Philip  VI  of  France, 
who  had  been  empowered  by  Pope  Benedict  XII  to  order  an 
interdict  laid  on  Flanders,  declared  that  neither  he  nor  his 
heirs  should  exercise  the  authority.*2  If  a  vidimus  by  Pierre 
Bornihores  of  a  bull  of  Gregory  IX  is  correctly  understood, 
the  consuls  of  Perpignan  thought  of  imposing  an  interdict  on 
the  church  of  St.  John.48  However,  instances  of  the  use  of 
interdict  by  civil  authorities  are  rare.44  A  review  of  the  fore- 
going paragraphs  must  impress  one  with  the  fact  that,  though 
many  persons  possessed  the  power  of  laying  interdicts/5  it  was 
not  by  chance  but  by  clear  grant  from  proper  authorities. 
The  causes  for  interdicts,  notwithstanding  their  number  and 

39  Chapters  also  promulgated  interdicts  upon  authority  delegated  by  a 
bishop.     For  example,   the   Bishop  of  Cesena   granted  his  chapter  this 
power,  Thomassin,  III,  lib.  II,  c.  23,  n.  7. 

40  Lea,  Inquisition  of  Spain,  I,  355,  420,  456,  482,  485,  487,  495, 
514,  519,  523. 

41  Matt.  Par.,  133  f.,  cited  by  Raumer,  Gesch.  Hohenst.,  VI,  162,  n.  9. 
4J  Diericx,  Mem,  de  Gana,  App.,  109,  n.  I.     "  Philippe  .    .    .  Savoir 

faisons  a  tous  presens  et  avenir  .  .  .  ne  puissons  jamais  faire  constraindre 
ledict  conte  de  Flandres,  le  pays  de  Flandres,  ou  les  personnes  diceluy 
pays  par  sentenches  de  suspencions,  d'excommunication,  dinterdycte  [sic] 
ou  de  dessaroicion." 

43Bibl.  de  Perpignan,  MS.  No.  78,  i°.     Cited  from  Cat.  gen.  des  Bibl. 

Publ.  de  France,  Perpignan,  p.  109.      "  Vidimus  par  Pierre  Bornihores 

.    .    .  d'une  bulle  de  Gregoire  XI  au  sujet  de  1'interdit  de  1'^glise  de  S. 

Jean,  que  les  consuls  de  Perpignan  avaient  voulu  imposer."    August,  1376. 

"Viollet,  Imlit.  Politiq.  de  France,  II,  298,  n.  2. 

45  Occasionally  it  is  not  clear  exactly  what  authority  laid  the  interdict. 
For  example,  J-L.,  4854  (3616),  in  which  Romana  ecclesia  is  the  author- 
ity; and  J-L.,  12552  (8384),  in  which  the  "church  of  Rouen"  appears 
as  the  authority  laying  the  interdict. 


26  THE  INTERDICT 

complexity,  fall  naturally  into  three  categories :  conditions 
harmful  to  society,  conditions  harmful  to  the  church,  and  the 
necessities  of  ecclesiastics.  A  few  interdicts  were  issued  on 
account  of  conditions  which  were  harmful  to  society  as  a  whole 
or  to  some  part  of  society.  In  1031  the  Council  of  Limoges 
endeavored  to  secure  observance  of  the  Peace  of  God  by 
threatening  the  robber-barons  with  interdict  if  they  continued 
their  depredations.46  Bishop  Alduin  of  Limoges  pronounced 
' «  excommunication  ' '  over  his  diocese  because  of  the  devasta- 
tions by  certain  bandits/1  presumably  living  within  the  limits 
of  his  bishopric.  Tournaments,  because  they  hindered  the 
taking  of  the  cross,  were  prohibited  for  a  period  in  the  time 
of  Innocent  III  under  threat  of  excommunication  and  inter- 
dict ;  nor  was  a  relaxation  to  ensue  until  the  offender  had  fore- 
sworn tournaments  for  the  time  specified.48  It  may  well  be 
questioned  whether  the  unfortunate  condition  of  society  was 
the  only  motive  that  led  to  the  threat  of  interdict  in  the  above 
cases.  It  is  possible  that  the  desire  to  serve  the  church  was  a 
stronger  motive  than  the  desire  to  serve  society.  That,  how- 
ever, is  a  question  of  little  significance,  since  instances  of 
such  occasions  for  interdicts  are  so  rare  as  to  substantiate 
neither  view.*9  The  dearth  of  instances  in  which  the  interdict 
was  relied  upon  to  improve  the  lot  of  humanity  is  no  reproach 
to  the  church,  for  there  were  other  means  and  agencies  which 
were  more  effective  for  that  purpose,  and  a  function  so  dis- 
tinctly temporal  was  properly  left  to  the  temporal  power. 

Instances  in  which  districts  were  deprived  of  all  ecclesiasti- 
cal ministrations  for  the  benefit  of  states,  cities,  or  other  politi- 
cal unities  are  somewhat  more  frequent.  London  and  the 
lands  of  the  barons  who  opposed  King  John  after  he  repudi- 

46DuCange,  Glossar^  under  "  Interdictum  ".  Careful  distinction  be- 
tween interdict  and  excommunication  must  be  urged  at  this  point.  Ex- 
communication was  used  long  before  1031  to  aid  society. 

47  Ademar,  Chron.  ad  an.  994,  in  Rec.,  X,  147. 

48Gesta,  c.  84.      Cf.  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  IX,  197;  X,  74. 

49  It  should  be  observed  that  both  of  the  cases  mentioned  above  are 
merely  threats  of  interdict  and  not  actual  sentences. 


THE  LAYING  OF  AN  INTER  Did  27 

ated  Magna  Charta  were  put  under  interdict.60  The  Lombard 
cities  were  disciplined  for  reforming  their  league  with  the  de- 
sign of  resisting  Frederick  II ; 5l  Louis  VIII  was  warned  to  de- 
sist from  the  seizure  of  any  English  possessions ; M  the  English 
magnates  opposing  Henry  III  were  threatened ; 5S  the  citizens 
of  Brindisi  and  others  opposing  Walter  of  Brienne  were  given 
a  month  to  return  to  fidelity  ;54  Albricus,  a  knight,  agreed  that 
if  he  vexed  the  inhabitants  of  a  stated  locality  he  was  to  be 
excommunicated  and  his  lands  interdicted  ; "  and  the  marau- 
ders of  Vallemagne  were  pursued  wherever  they  went  by  an 
ambulatory  interdict.56  In  one  instance,  an  attempt  was  made 
to  secure  justice  for  an  individual.  King  John  had  refused  for 
more  than  eight  years  to  pay  the  jointure  of  Berengaria,  Rich- 
ard's queen,  and  Innocent  III,  tiring  of  his  unavailing  efforts 
to  secure  a  settlement,  finally  threatened  certain  manors  and 
honors  with  special  interdict,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  they 
already  lay  under  general  interdict.  This  attempt  to  aid 
Berengaria  proved  ineffectual.57 

Second,  the  interdict  was  most  frequently  used  to  advance 
the  interests  of  the  church.  These  were  both  temporal  and 
spiritual.  It  has  been  indicated  above  why  this  form  of  disci- 
pline was  not  common  in  those  matters  in  which  the  state  had 
undeniably  a  primary  interest.  Besides,  there  were  temporal 
affairs  in  which  the  church  had  quite  as  great  an  interest  as  its 
interest  in  spiritual  affairs.  Under  its  spiritual  interests  this 
study  groups  those  matters  which  relate  to  morality  or  faith. 
Violations  of  those  rules  which  the  church  has  laid  down  for 

60  (a)  Florence  of  Worcester  (Eng.  Hist.  Soc.),  317.  (b)  Reinerus, 
Annal.  ad  an.  1216,  in  MGSS.,  XVI,  674. 

51  Huillard-Breholles,  Historia  Diplom.,  II,  ii,  p.  643. 

52  Potth.,  7913. 

53  (a)  Rymer,  Foed.,  I,  i,  103.     (b)  Potth.,  8136. 

54  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  191  (Potth.,  2064). 

65  Cartulaire  de  Montidramey,  No.  249,  in  Col.  des  princip.  Cartul.  de 
Troyes,  p.  252,  No.  249. 

"J-L.,  15247. 

57  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XI,  223,  224  (Potth.,  3618,  3619;  cf.  997,  998). 
(b)  Diet.  Natl.  Biog.,  under  "  Berengaria." 


2g  THE  INTERDICT 

the  purity  and  orthodoxy  of  its  members  were  finally68  provo- 
cative of  the  local  interdict.  Most  famous  among  the  inter- 
dicts resulting  from  a  violation  of  the  law  of  marriage  is  that 
of  France,  pronounced  because  Philip  Augustus  repudiated 
Ingeborg.59  Another  case  is  that  of  Portugal  and  Leon,  laid 
because  of  the  incestuous  marriage  of  the  King  of  Leon  with 
the  daughter  of  the  King  of  Portugal.60  On  that  occasion  the 
effect  of  the  discipline  did  not  prove  lasting,  for  presently  the 
same  ruler  of  Leon  married  a  princess  of  Castile  to  whom  he 
was  related  within  the  prohibited  degrees ;  his  kingdom  was 
interdicted ,  and  the  realm  of  Castile 61  was  threatened  with  a 
like  calamity,  unless  its  rulers  rendered  efficacious  service  in 
dissolving  the  offensive  marriage. 

Besides  improper  marriages  various  other  indecencies  pro- 
duced interdicts.  Gregory  of  Tours  tells  that  the  nuns  of 
Poitiers  by  their  immoral  living  gave  provocation  for  an  inter- 
dict (called  excommunication).62  Assisi  was  interdicted  for  a 
profanation  of  the  rites  connected  with  the  translation  of  St. 
Francis.63  The  murder  of  Conrad,  Bishop  of  Wiirzburg, 
brought  an  interdict  on  the  possessions  of  all  the  guilty  and  of 
those  who  showed  them  favor  ; 64  the  murder  of  Becket  deter- 
mined the  pope  to  interdict  all  the  lands  of  Henry  II.85  Sim- 
ony seems  to  have  caused  an  interdict  to  fall  on  a  monastery 

58  It  was  more  common  to  use  excommunication  or  personal  interdict. 
The  local  interdict  was  reserved  for  those  cases  in  which  milder  correctives 
of  the  church  had  failed  and  for  cases  of  flagrant  sin. 

69  See  Appendix,  case  57.     Interdict  on  France,  1200. 

60  Gesta,  c.  58. 

61  See  Appendix,  case  3.     Interdict  on  Leon  and  Castile. 

62  Greg.Turon.,  Hist.  Franc.,  IX,  39ff.;  X,  i5ff.    Rowland,  case  No.  9. 

63  Potth.,  8572. 

"Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  V,  155  (Potth.,  1813). 

es  (a)  Mat.  Hist.  Becket  (JR.  Ser.),  IV,  165!.  (b)  W.  Newburgh, 
Hist.  Rer.  Angl.,lib.  II,  c.  XI  (R.  Ser.)y  I,  128-129.  Murder  of  Raymond 
Trencavel.  (c)  J-L.,  17128  (10479).  Murder  of  Berengar,  Archbishop 
of  Tarragona,  (d)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  Ill,  39  (Potth.,  1160).  Bishop  of 
Belluno  killed  in  battle,  (e)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XI,  26  (Potth.,  3324). 
Murder  of  Pierre  Castelnau.  (f)  Mun.  Acad.  Oxon.  (R.  Ser.),  igof. 
Cf.  Boase,  Oxford,  90-91.  Murder  of  Oxford  scholars. 


THE  LAYING  OF  AN  INTERDICT 


2Q 


of  the  diocese  of  Reims,6*  and  simoniacal  practices  on  the 
part  of  Philip  I  of  France  caused  him  to  be  threatened  with 
interdict.67  Pollution68  or  the  burial  of  an  excommunicate  in 
a  church  was  regarded  as  a  sufficient  reason  for  interdicting 
the  locality  concerned.  The  failure  to  observe  church  holi- 
days was  sometimes  deemed  a  sufficient  occasion  for  inter- 
dicts, as  appears  from  a  papal  order  prohibiting  the  excom- 
munication or  interdict  of  those  vassals  and  servants  of  the 
Cistercians  who  worked  on  days  which  others  considered  holi- 
days.69 The  presence  of  heretics  in  at  least  one  instance  caused 
an  interdict  to  be  threatened.70 

Much  more  frequent  than  the  interdicts  just  discussed  were 
those  which  resulted  from  an  infringement  upon  the  temporal 
interests  of  the  church.  It  appeared  in  the  consideration  of 
the  purposes  of  the  interdict  that  it  was  an  administrative 
order,  designed  principally  to  furnish  the  church  the  necessary 
means  of  forcing  aggressors  to  come  to  terms.  Resistance  to 
the  church  from  within  could  be  so  adequately  met  by  the 
weapons  of  suspension,  excommunication,  degradation,  and 
the  like  that  the  offences  of  ecclesiastics  were  rarely  the  occa- 
sion for  a  local  interdict ;  resistance  to  the  church  from  with- 
out, however,  demanded  a  stronger  and  a  more  formidable 
weapon,  and  this  was  found  in  the  local  general  interdict, 
which  had  as  its  special  function  the  protection  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal property.  So  strictly  did  the  church  guard  her  property- 
rights  that  the  mere  presence  of  stolen  goods,71  or  of  rob- 

66  J-L. ,4548.     Local  particular.     Cited  by  Hinschius,  V,  21-22,  n.  2. 

•'  J-L.,  4807  (3571). 

68  (a)    Andreae,    Tract.    Utiliss.    (MS.)    Tricesimus    quartus.     "Cum 
ecclesia  cum  sanguine  vel  semine  polluitur  tune  est  a  jure  ecclesia  inter- 
dicta  usque   ad   reconciliationem  et  in  ea  non  est  celebrandum."      (b) 
Bibl.Nat.,  MS.  Lat.,  15415  (Berengar  Fredoli),  fol.  232,  col.  4.     Beren- 
gar,  among  his  causes  for  which  churches,  localities,  etc.,  may  be  polluted 
and   hence  interdicted,  says  (C'ause  IX0.),  "  Si  emissione  humani  seminis 
polluantur  .    .    ."    (c)  Interdicts  for  pollution  were  usually  local  particular. 

69  J-L. ,  13851  (89 1 8) .     Personal  interdict  (  ? ) . 
"  J-L.,  15461. 

71  (a)  Prov.  Cone.  Trev.,  1238,  c.  2,  in  Mansi,  Cone.,  XXIII,  479.     If 


30  THE  INTERDICT 

bers,72  resulted  in  an  interdict  for  a  locality.  Very  early T3  and 
very  often 7*  did  the  church  protect  its  own  by  means  of  inter- 
dicts ;  they  were  issued  on  account  of  the  seizure  of  a  church,76 
a  castle,76  a  villa,77  relics,78  episcopal  regalia,79  and  ecclesiasti- 
cal paraments.80  The  monks  of  Monte  Casino  were  robbed  of 
property  left  in  their  charge  for  safe-keeping,  and  the  result  of 
their  negligence  was  an  interdict  on  the  church  of  St.  Benedict 


anyone  brings  stolen  goods  into  a  parish,  "per  totam  illam  parochiam 
cessetur  a  divinis,  dum  ibi  praeda  et  praedo  et  praedae  emtor  fuerit". 
(b)  Cartul.  de  1'abbaye  de  Basse-Fontaine,  in  Col.  des  princip.  Cartul.  de 
Troyes,  p.  142,  No.  106.  "Villas,  autem,  in  quibus  bona  praedictorum 
fratrum  per  violentiam  detenta  fuerint,  quamdiu  ibi  sint,  interdict!  sententie 
supponatis." 

72  Cartul.    de  la  Chapelle-aux-Planches,  No.   41,  in   CoL   des  princip. 
Cartul.  de  Troyes,  p.  41,  No.  41.     "  Le  Pape  [Innocent  III]  ordonne  de 
niettre  en  interdit  tous  les  lieux  ou  demeureront  les  violateurs  et  les  enva- 
hisseurs  des  biens  de  1'Ordre  [de  Premontre]  jusqu'a  restitution  ..." 

73  (a)  Greg.  Turon.,  In  Glor.  Mart.,  c.  78.     Rowland,  case  No.  6.      Cf. 
Hinschius,  IV,  805,  n.  2.     The  date  of  this  censure  was  about  541  A.  D. 

(b)  Greg.  Turon.,  In  Glor.  Confess.,  c.  70.     Rowland,  case  No.  7.     Cf. 
Hinschius,  IV,  805,  n.  2.     Date,  about  565  A.  D.     (c)  Vita  S.  Eligii,  I, 
30,  in  d'Achery,  Spicil.,  II,  87.     Cf.  Hinschius,  IV,  805,  n.  2.     Date, 
before  659  A.  D. 

T4  (a)  J-L.,  5517  (4129).  Rowland,  case  No.  43.  (b)  J-L.,  6781 
(4959)»  6564  (4847).  Rowland,  case  No.  56.  (c)  J-L.,  6987  (5098). 
Rowland,  case  No.  59.  (d)  J-L.,  6948  (5078).  Threat  of  a  local  par- 
ticular interdict,  (e)  J-L.,  7125  (5162),  6925  (5061).  Rowland,  case 
No.  60.  (f)  J-L.,  8940  (6253).  (g)  J-L.,  9287.  Rowland,  case  No. 
68.  (h)  J-L.,  11254  (7512).  This  may  be  a  personal  interdict,  fi) 
J-L.,  15704.  (j)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  II,  59  (Potth.,  683).  (k)  Inn.  Ill, 
Epp.,  VI,  73  (Potth.,  1919).  (1)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XI,  87  (Potth.,  3814). 
(m)  Lebeuf,  Mlm.  Diocese  d' Auxerre,  I,  370-372.  (n)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp., 
XII,  120  (Potth.,  3843).  (o)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XII,  80  (Potth.,  3777). 
(p)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XVI,  98  (4798). 

75  (a)  Cone.  Poitiers,  1078,  in  Mansi,  Cone.,  XX,  498.     (b)  J-L.,  7114. 

(c)  J-L.,  9884.     This  is  a  threat;  it  may  be  a  personal  interdict. 

76  (a)  J-L.,  6926  (5062),  6927,  6928,  6929.     Rowland,  case  No.  58. 
(b)  Mittarelli,  Annal.  Camald.,  IV,  App.,  255.     "  .    .    .in  terra  eorum 
interdict!  sentent.  promulgarit,  eo  quod  ipsi  quoddam  castrum  cum  tola 
curte  .   .    .  occuparant." 

77  J-L.,  5157  (3884).     Rowland,  case  No.  37. 

78  J-L.,  11561. 

79Chron.  Rothomag.  ad  an.  1233,  in  Labbe,  Nova  Bibl.,  I,  376.  "In 
mense  Julii  saisivit  dominus  Rex  Ludovicus  junior  Regalia  domini  Rotho- 
magensis  Archiepiscopi." 

80  See  above,  n.  73  c. 


THE  LA  YING  OF  AN  INTERDICT  3  j 

at  Monte  Casino.81  A  mere  attack  on  property,82  damage  or 
even  disturbance  of  ecclesiastical  possessions,83  was  ample 
cause  for  interdict;  for  example,  because  the  Count  of  Nevers 
placed  many  restraints  on  the  monks  of  Vezelai,  and  finally 
blockaded  their  monastery,84  his  lands  were  interdicted. 
Quarrels  about  title  to  property 85  occasionally  brought  inter- 
dicts upon  the  litigants  opposing  the  church,  as  was  the  case 
in  the  dramatic  interdict  of  Auxerre,  which  grew  out  of  the 
dispute  between  Peter  of  Courtenay  and  Bishop  Hugh  Noyers.86 
Unjust  taxation  of  church  property 8T  and  refusal  to  pay  tithes88 
or  money  due  the  church 89  were  prevented  by  the  judicious 
use  of  the  interdict.  Florence  was  deprived  of  services  for 
not  compelling  her  ruined  bankers  to  compound  for  a  deposit 
made  by  the  papal  legate ,  the  Cardinal  of  Santa  Sabina ; 90  and 
Innocent  III  threatened  Cyprus  with  an  interdict  to  compel 
the  payment  of  tithes.91  Still  other  interdicts  were  caused  by 

81J-L.,  5129  (3859),  5130  (3860).     This  local  particular  interdict  is  a 
punishment.     See  above,  chap.  I,  n.  25. 

82  (a)  J-L.,  6441-     (b)  J-L.,  8986  (6280),  9545  (6624),  97^4  (6748), 
10066  (6878).     (c)  J-L.,  10372  (7027).     (d)  J-L.,  12551.     (e)  J-L., 
13186.     (f)  J-L.,  13244.     (g)  J-L.,  16226.     (h)  J-L.,   16820  (10356). 
(i)  J-L.,  17569  (10657).      (j)  Marlot,  Hist,  de  Reims,  III,  773.     (k)  Inn. 
Ill,  Epp.,  I,  137  (Potth.,  8137). 

83  (a)  J-L  >   8647   (6093).     This  is  a  local  particular  interdict,     (b) 
J-L.,  8772  (6163).    Threat,    (c)  J-L.,  8986  (6280).    Threat,    (d)  J-L., 
9554  (6630).     (e)  J-L.,  10095.     Threat,     (f)  J-L.,  13597.     (g)  Meiller, 
Reg.  der  Salzb.  Erzbisch.,  p.  170,  No.  7  (Potth.,  1250).     (h)  Quell.  Gesch. 
Stadt  Koln,  II  (1863),  345-346.      "  Johannes,  Dechant  zu  Mainz,  fordert 
im  Auftrage  des  Cardinals  Petrus  den  Kolnischen   Domscholaster  pnf,  alle 
Unruhestifter  der  Provinz  zum  Frieden  zu  ermahnen  und  fiir  den  Ubertre- 
tungsfall  ihnen  mit  Excommunication  und  Interdict  zu  drohen." 

84  See  Appendix,  case  33.     Case  of  Nevers. 

85  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VII,  163  (Potth.,  2338).     (b)  Rec.,  XIX,  546 
(Potth. ,4333). 

88  See  Appendix,  case  88.     Interdict  on  Auxerre. 

87  (a)  J-L.,  14801.     (b)  Hocsemius,  Hist.  Pont.  Leod.,  1255,  in  Cha- 
peaville,  II,  290.     This  interdict  was  laid  because  the  citizens  tried  to  tax 
the  property  of  the  clergy:  "...  maltotum  super  venalibus  posuissent 

88  (a)  J-L.,  17016.     (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  II,  242  (Potth.,  898).     (c) 
Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  X,  158  (Potth.,  3234). 

88  (a)  J-L.,  12192.     (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  II,  147  (Potth.,  774). 
90  Lea,  Inquisition^  II,  278.  91  Potth.,  956. 


32  THE  INTERDICT 

infringement  upon  the  liberties  of  the  church,92  by  resistance 
of  either  ecclesiastics  or  laymen  to  the  church,9394  by  adher- 
ence to  lay  or  clerical  enemies  of  the  church,9596  by  treaties 

92  (a)  Chron.  Rothomag.  ad  an.  1196,  in  Labbe,  Nova  Bibl.,  I,  369- 
370.  "  Interdicta  est  ci vitas  Rotomagensis  et  tota  Normannia  pro  castro, 
quod  Richardus  Rex  illustris  firmavit  in  rupe  Andeleii  contra  dignitatem 
Rothomagensis  Ecclesiae  ..."  (b)  England,  1208.  (c)  Hist.  gen. 
de  Languedoc,  IX,  480.  Several  cities  are  interdicted  because  royal  offi- 
cials interfered  with  episcopal  jurisdiction. 

98  (a)  J-L.,  4869  (3628).  (b)  J-L.,  9343  (6487).  (c)  Mat.  Hist. 
Becket  (R.  Ser.},  VI,  31-32.  This  interdict  was  laid  because  the  bishop 
had  disregarded  his  suspension,  (d)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  60  (Potth.,  66). 
(e)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  160  (Potth.,  119).  (f)  Ryccardus  de  S.  Germane, 
Chron.  ad  an.  1210,  in  MGSS.,  XIX,  334.  "  .  .  .  ecclesiam  Capuanam 
sub  interdict©  ponit  pro  eo  quod  celebrare  ausi  sunt  ipso  [Otto] 
presente."  (g)  Gall.  Christ.,  XII,  Instrumenta,  col.  173-174.  This 
interdict  was  laid  because  the  prior  of  La  Charite  refused  to  surrender  to  the 
bishop  a  woman  suspected  of  heresy,  (h)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  55  (Potth. ,49). 
(i)  J-L.,  4536.  Rowland,  case  No.  30.  Cf.  Hinschius,  V,  21-22,  n.  2. 

94  (a)  Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Cone.,  Ill,  586,  note,  and  597-602.     How- 
land,  case  No.  12.     Cf.  Hinschius,  V,  19,  n.  13.     (b)  J-L.,  6942.     (c) 
Gesta  Pontiff.  Cameracen.,  in  MGSS.,  XIV,  237,  lines  436-437.     The 
citizens  of  Cambrai  refused  to  give  homage,      (d)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  73 
(Potth.,  1919).      (e)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XII,  144  (Potth.,  3844).      (f)  Prov. 
Cone.  Trev.,  1238,  c.  5,  in  Mansi,  Cone.,  XXIII,  480.     If  lords  are  re- 
quested to  compel  their  subjects  to  obey  the  church,  and  fail  to  do  so,  they 
shall  be  excommunicated.     "  Et  si  sententia  excom.  non  sufficit  circa  eos, 
ipsorum  terra  supponatur  interdicto."     (g)  Collect.   Topog.  et  Geneal.,^\ 
(1840),  47ff.     This  interdict  was  laid  because  the  injunction  of  a  bishop 
against  building  a  church  was  disregarded.     It  was  a  local  particular  inter- 
dict,     (h)   Hist.    Episc.    Autiss.,   LXIV,  in  Labbe,   Nova  Bibl.,  1,506. 
Auxerre,  1275.     This  interdict  was  laid  because  of  non-observance  of  ex- 
communication,    (i)  Anon.,  S.  Martialis  Chron.  ad  an.  1276,  in  Duples- 
Agier,  Chron.,  173.     "Eodem  anno,  Girbertus,  Episcopus  Lemovicensis, 
.   .   .  vicecomitatum  Lemovicensem  subponit,  propter  obsidionem  Userchie, 
eccl.  interdicto."     This  is  a  case  of  armed  resistance  to  the  church,     (j) 
Lea,  Inquisition,  II,  280.     Pistoia,  1375.     The  city  was  interdicted  for 
protecting  its  citizens  against  arrest  by  the  Inquisition. 

95  (a)  Jaffe,  Bill.   Rer.    Ger.,  II,  108.     Howland,  case  No.  72.      (b) 
Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  461  (Potth.,  473).     (c)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  II,  78  (Potth., 
718).     (d)  Ryccardus  de  S.  German.,  Chron.  ad  an.  1211,  in  MGSS., 
XIX,  334.     (e)  Teulet,  Layettes,  I,  372,  No.  973  (Potth.,  4317).     Called 
excommunication,     (f)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XVI,  56  (Potth.,  4736).     For  ad- 
herence to  Emperor  Otto,     (g)  Winkelmann,  Ph.  v.  Schwaben,  II,  393- 
396.     (h)   Robert.  Altiss.,  Chronolog.  ad  an.  1216,  in  Rec.,  XVIII,  284. 
"Omnium  enim  qui  adhaeserant  Ludovico  subjecit  et  iuterdicto  terras  et 
excom.  personas."     (i)  Annal.  Waverl.,  in  Annal.  Monast.  (R.  Ser.),  II, 
286.     '» Walliam  totam  interdixit  quia  cum  baronibus  tenuit."     (j)  Gio- 
vanni Sercambi,  I,  64-85,  in  Fonti,  XX.     Lucca,  about  1335.     Laid  be- 
cause of  adherence  to  Louis  of  Bavaria. 

96  (a)  J-L.,  4573,  4574.     Howland,  case  No.  31.     Cf.  Hinschius,  V, 


THE  LA  YING  OF  AN  INTERDICT  33 

with  infidels,97  by  violation  of  treaties,  vows,  or  oaths,88  by 
refusal  to  take  an  oath  or  make  peace  ,89 10°  by  harboring  male- 
factors,101 by  failure  to  elect  a  bishop,102  by  instalment  into 

21-22,  n.  2.  King  and  princes  of  France  were  urged,  under  pain  of  inter- 
dict, to  eject  the  usurping  Bishop  of  Chartres.  (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  II, 
288  (Potth.,  944).  (c)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VIII,  84  (Potth.,  2530).  (d) 
Annal.  Staden.  ad  an.  1211,  in  MGSS.,  XVI,  355.  (e)  MS.  S.  Marci 
Venet.,  Cod.  Lat.  25,  A.  141.  i.  102  (LIX,  XLI),  O,  fol.  17-20. 
Cited  from  Bibl.  MS.  ad  S.  Marci  Venet.,  V,  325.  This  threat  is  by 
Alexander  VI,  because  of  the  adherence  of  Florence  to  Savonarola. 
"  .  .  .  alioquin  .  .  .  totam  civitatem  Florentiae  eccl.  interdicto  subiice- 
mus  tandiu  duraturo,  quamdiu  vestro  isto  monstruoso  idolo  favorem 
praestabitis. " 

97  (a)  J-L.,  3012,  3046,  3089,  3090.     Rowland,  case  No.  15.     Naples, 
about  879.     (b)   J-L.,   3304.     Howland,  case  No.    15.     Amalfi,  about 
879.     Both  of  these  cities  were  interdicted  for  making  a  pact  with  the 
Saracens,     (c)   See  Appendix,  case    I.     Navarre,  1197.      (d)  Raynald., 
Annal.  Eccl.,  1229,  XI.     Holy  places  in  Jerusalem,  1229.     Laid  because  of 
Frederick  ll's  treaty  with  the  Sultan.     Cf.  Raumer,  Gesch.Hohenst.,\].\,  199. 

98  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  92  (Potth.,  81).     (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  249 
(Potth.,  263).      (c)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  355  (Potth.,  351).     (d)  Inn.  Ill, 
Epp.,  I,  347  (Potth.,  361).     (e)  Rec.,  XIX,  352,  353  (Potth.,  673), 
Art.    5:    "  .    .    .  quod,    quotiescumque   me    a   praedictis   conventionibus 
resilere  contigerit,  toties  .    .    .  terram  meam  totam  interdicto  supponant." 
An  interdict  was  later  laid  in  accordance  with  this  agreement,      (f)  Inn. 
Opp.,  Ill,  1124,  No.    120  (Potth.,  2489).     Henry,  Count  Palatine,  was 
threatened  with  interdict  for  failing  to  keep  his  oath  to  be  faithful  to  Otto, 
(g)   Rec.,  XIX,    17.     Raymond  of  Toulouse  in  his  oath  of  submission 
agreed  that,  if  he  failed  to  keep  it,  he  should  be  punished.     "...  volo 
etiam   et  concedo  ut  persona  mea  excommunicetur  et  terra  supponatur 
interdicto."      (h)  Gest.  Hen.  II  {R.  Ser.},  I,  180-190,  and  J-L.,  12705, 
12248.     Henry  II  of  England  is  threatened  with  interdict  if  he  fails  to 
fulfil  marriage  agreements  entered  into  with  the  King  of  France.      (i) 
Rec.,  XIX,  375  (Potth.,  674).     (j)  Gesta,  c.  84.     Interdict  was  threat- 
ened to  enforce  a  crusader's  vows,     (k)  Potth.,  8162.     An  ambulatory 
interdict  pursued  Frederick  II  because  he  failed  to  keep  his  vow  to  go  on 
a  crusade. 

99  (a)   Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,   297   (Potth.,  286).      (b)   Steph.  Tornac., 
Epp.,  246,  in  Migne,  Pat.  Lat.,  211,  col.  513. 

100  (a)  Mat.  Hist.  Becket  (A>.   Ser.},  VII,  235.     "  Regi  .    .    .  signifi- 
catnm  est,  quod,  nisi  citius  cum  ecclesia  fecerit  pacem  ...  ex  tune  nulla 
ratione  differri  poterit  quin  in  personam  ejus  et  terram  cismarinam  et  trans- 
marinam  ecclesiastica  severitas  exerceatur."      (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  355 
(Potth.,  351).     England  and  France  are  commanded  to  make  peace  or  a 
truce  on  pain  of  interdict. 

101  J-L.,  12135  (8160).     The  King  of  Aragon  is  threatened  with  inter- 
dict and  excommunication,  unless  he  banish  the  murderers  of  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Tarragona  from  his  kingdom. 

102  J-L. ,   5967.     Threat  of  local  particular  interdict.     The  church  of 
Mileto  was  to  be  interdicted,  unless  the  canons  elected  a  bishop  before  a 
certain  date. 


34  THE  INTERDICT 

ecclesiastical  benefices  in  spite  of  prohibition,108  by  attempt  to 
commit  any  act  deemed  harmful  to  the  church,104  and,  finally, 
by  offence  against  the  right  of  asylum.105 

A  third  cause  for  interdicts  is  found  in  the  necessities  of 
ecclesiastical  persons.  Interdicts  issued  for  such  a  cause  were 
of  two  kinds  :  those  resulting  from  the  efforts  of  the  clergy  to 
obtain  that  protection  to  which  they  were  entitled  by  the 
recognized  law  of  the  times;  and  those  resulting  from  the 
desire  of  the  clergy  to  advance  their  private  interests.  Im- 
prisonment, detention,106  banishment,  and  expulsion  of  clerks,107 

108  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  113  (Potth.,  1958).          104  See  above,  n.  97. 

105  Cone.  Lond.,  1286,  c.  13,  in  Hard.,  VII,  62$t. 

106  (a)  J-L.,  4485.     Rowland,  case  No.  29.     Cf.  Hinschius,  V,  21, 
n.  i.     An  interdict  because  of  seizure  and  detention  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rosello.     (b)  J-L.,  5368.     Rowland,  case  No.  39.     Cf.  Hinschius,  V, 
21-22,  n.  2.     In  this  case  the  interdict  was  laid  because  the  people  and 
clergy  of  St.  James  had  seized  their  bishop,  placed  him  in  chains,  and  put 
another  in  his  place,     (c)  J-L.,   5469.     Rowland,  case  No.  41.     Cf. 
Hinschius,  V,  22,  n.  I.     Interdict  because  of  imprisonment  of  Bishop  Ivo 
of  Chartres.     (d)  J-L.,  6926  (5062).     Rowland,  case  No.  58.     Threat  of 
interdict  to  secure  the   release  of  the  Archbishop  of  Compostella.     (e) 
J-L.,  6987  (5098).     Rowland,  case  No.  39.     Portugal  is  threatened  with 
interdict  to  secure  the  release  of  the  Archbishop  of  Braga,  with  his  follow- 
ers and  property,     (f)  J-L.,  16938,  169383,  i6938b.     Denmark  is  threat- 
ened to  secure  the  release  of  Waldemar,  Bishop  of  Schleswig.     (g)  Hove- 
den,  Chron.,   Pars  post,  ad  an.    1199  (R.  Ser.),  IV,  94.     (h)  Inn.  Ill, 
Epp.,  I,  24  (Potth.,  29).     (i)  Auctor  Anon.,  in  Ludewig,  IX,  8l.     Den- 
mark, 1259.     "...  captus  est  Jacobus  Archiepiscopus      -    .  in   domo 
sua  .    .    .  et  incarceratus  in  castro  Hagenskow;   ob  quod  fuit  interdictum 
•  •  •  "     (J)  J-I"»  16970,   16971.     Henry,  Emperor  of   Constantinople, 
was  threatened  with  interdict  to  secure  the  release  of  Richard,  an  English 
clerk,     (k)  Antiquus  Cartul.  Eccl.  Baiocensis,  No.  300,  in  Mem.  Soc. 
Antiq.  Norm.,  8  (1834),  452-453.     "Post  interdictum  pro  detentione 
hominis   nostri  canoni[ci]  ..."      (1)  Hist.  gin.   de  Languedoc,   IX, 
786.     Cause  for  this  interdict  was  the  imprisonment  of  the  grand  vicar  of 
an  archbishop  by  the  consuls  of  the  city,     (m)  Mat.  Hist.  Becket  (R.  Ser), 
VI,  31-32.     An  interdict  was  threatened  because  of  imprisonment  of  a 
chaplain,    William,     (n)    J-L.,    9737,   9738,    9739.     Henry,    Duke    of 
Normandy,  was  threatened  in  order  to  secure  the  release  of  the  abbot-elect, 
Richard. 

107  (a)  J-L.,  8186  (5831).     Rowland,  case  No.  65.     Because  the  peo- 
ple  had   expelled   William,     (b)  J-L.,  9619   (6667).     (c)  J-L.,  9620 
(6668).     (d)  J-L.,  9684  (6698);  b,  c,  and  d  have  to  do  with  the  ex- 
pulsion of  an  abbot,     (e)  Potth.,  1260,   1261   (f)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VII, 
171  (Potth.,   2344).     (g)  Clemens  XI,  Const.  "Ad  Plurimas",  1713,  in 
Bullar.  Rom.,  XXI,  588g.     Because  the  Bishop  of  Girgenti  was  expelled 
from  his  diocese. 


THE  LAYING  OF  AN  INTERDICT  35 

frequently  produced  interdicts,  for  the  church  endeavored  to 
shield  her  servants  from  all  indignities.108  Personal  opposition 
to  churchmen 109  and  infringement  upon  individual  or  corporate 
privileges  were  occasional  causes  for  interdict.110  Private  gain 
was  the  motive  for  those  interdicts  by  the  aid  of  which  the 
payment  of  debts  and  tithes111  was  exacted,  personal  injuries 
were  avenged,  rivals  were  defeated,11'2  and  the  payment  of 
taxes  was  evaded.113  It  is  by  no  means  to  the  discredit  of  the 
church  that  interdicts  for  such  causes  were  generally  recog- 
nized as  abuses.  A  discipline  applicable  in  so  wide  a  range  "* 

108  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  403  (Potth.,  413).     (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XVI, 
56  (Potth.,  4736).     (c)    Quellen  Gesch.  Stadt  Koln,  II,  540.     Cologne, 
1266.     "  Papst    Clemens   IV    ertheilt  Vollmacht  das  Interdict  der    Stadt 
Koln,  welches  iiber  die  Burger  derselben  wegen  ihres  Angriffs  auf  den 
Erzbischof   verhangt   worden,    aufzuheben."       (d)    La   Clede,   Hist,   de 
Port.,  II,  418.     Lisbon,   about   1640.     Because  of  excesses  against  the 
papal  nuncio. 

109  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  55  (Potth.,  49).     For  the  refusal  of  a  chapter 
to  receive  a  canon,     (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  73  (Potth.,  1919).     John 
refuses  to  receive  the  Bishop  of  S£ez.     See  Appendix,  case  17.     (c)  Inn. 
Ill,  Epp.,  XII,   144   (Potth.,   3844).     Because  of  refusal  to  receive  a 
bishop. 

110  (a)  See  Appendix,  case  81.     Oxford,  1209.     Because  certain  clerks 
were    hanged   in    contravention    of    ecclesiastical   privileges,     (b)    Quell. 
Gesch.  Stadt  Koln,  IV,  133-134.     "Erzbischof  Heinrich  verkiindet,  dass 
er  .    .    .  die  Provincial-Statuten  bezuglich  des  wegen  Immunitats-Verletzung 
zu  verhangenden  Interdictes  .    .    .  mildere."      (c)  Marlot,  Hist,  de  Reims, 
III,  821-823,  No.  182.     The  archbishop  tried  to  collect  a  tax  from  the 
"  franc-bourgeois  "  of  the  chapter. 

111  (a)  J-L.,  17016.     Interdict  allowed  to  secure  the  payment  of  tithes, 
(b)  Potth.,  898.     Interdict  allowed  to  enforce  the  payment  of  tithes,     (c) 
Riedel,  Cod.,  I,  Urk.,  219.     Cited   from  Raumer,    Gesch.    Hohenst.,  VI, 
162,  n.  3.     Regensburg  interdicted  because  citizens  did  not  pay  their  debt, 
(d)  Planck,  IV,  ii,  294,  n.    19.     Clermont,  1250.     Because  the  diocese 
refused  to  pay  the  bishop  a  sum  usually  paid  "  pour  son  joyeux  avenement  ". 

112  Cone.  Tolosan.,  1056,  Querimonia  Berengarii  Vicecomitis,  in  Hard., 
VI,  I046f.     The  Archbishop  of  Narbonne  used  interdict  against  his  rival, 
Berengar. 

113  (a)  See  Appendix,  case  15.     York,  about  1199.     Archbishop  Geof- 
frey resisted  the  levying  of  camcage  by  interdict,     (b)  Hocsemius,  IJist. 
Font.  Leod.  ad  an.  1255,  in  Chapeaville,  II,  290.     Interdict  because  the 
citizens  tried  to  tax  property  of  canons,      (c)  Marlot,  Hist,  de  Reims,  III, 
821-823,  No.   182.     Chapter  of  Reims  resisted  a  tax  on   their  "franc- 
bourgeois"  by  threat  of  interdict. 

114  (a)  Not  infrequently  the  interdict  resulted  from  the  presence  of  some- 
thing (e.g.,  Bibl.  de  Dijon,  MS.  No.  73,  fol.  172,  v°.,  "  .    .    .  villas  au- 


36  THE  INTERDICT 

was  not  always  used  judiciously ;  for  example,  districts  were 
sometimes  interdicted  for  the  fault  of  obscure  persons  or  for 
unimportant  offences.115  Neither  did  ecclesiastics  properly 
distinguish  their  own  personal  and  financial  interests  from 
those  of  the  church.116  Robert  of  Rouen  used  the  interdict 
because  he  was  obliged  to  flee  from  the  city ; n7  other  priests 
closed  churches  to  avenge  insults ; 118  the  Archbishop  of  Nar- 
bonne  used  the  interdict  against  his  rival,  Berengar;119  the 
clergy  of  Reims  demanded  a  sum  of  money  for  raising  the 
interdict ;  the  priests  of  Soissons  were  interdicted  to  enforce 

tern  in  quibus   bona   praedictorum    fratrum,   vel   hominum   suorum,   per 

violentiam  detenta  fuerint,  aut  praedones  eorum  permanserint,  seu  etiam 

fratres  fugitivii  monachi  vel  conversi  contra  voluntatem  eorum  extiterint 

.    .    .  interdict!  sententie  .    .    .  supponatis."),  (b)  or  of  someone  (e.g.: 

(1)  J-L.,  12135  (8160),  the  King  of  Aragon  is  threatened  with  interdict 
because  of  the  presence  of  the  murderers  of  the  Archbishop  of  Tarragona; 

(2)  Quell.  Gesch.  Stadt  Koln,  II  (1863),  273,  interdict  is  allowed  for  those 
places  in  which  obdurate  plunderers  of  the  church  remain  for  three  days; 

(3)  ibid.,  VI  (1879),  187,  interdict  is  laid  because  of  presence  of  excom- 
municates),    (c)  The  church  could  lay  an  interdict  on  a  locality  for  the 
presence  of  some  one  guilty  of  any  offense  whatever.     Such  an  interdict  was 
not  necessarily  ambulatory. 

115  (a)  Kober,  XXII,  2gL  (b)  Hist.  gen.  de  Languedoc,  VI  (1879), 
763.  Innocent  IV  forbade  interdict  in  Languedoc  for  the  fault  of  one  or 
several  offenders,  because  it  weakened  the  cause  of  the  church  in  the  eyes 
of  the  heretics.  Cf.  Lea,  Inquisition,  II,  3.  (c)  Cone.  Basil.,  1435, 
Sessio  20  (Mansi,  xxix,  103).  "  Quoniam  ex  indiscreta  interdictorum 
promulgatione  multa  consueverunt  scandala  evenire,  statuit  haec  S.  Synodus 
quod  nulla  civitas,  oppidum,  castrum,  villa,  aut  locus  eccl.  supponi  possit 
interdicto,  nisi  ex  causa,  seu  culpa  ipsorum  locorum,  aut  domini  seu  rec- 
toris  vel  officialium;  propter  culpam  autem  seu  causam  alterius  cujus- 
cumque  privatae  personae  hujusmodi  loca  interdici  nequaquam  possint 

>5 

110 (a)  Bibl.  Nat.,  MS.  Lat.  5993,  A,  VI,  r°.-VII,  v°.  Blanche, 
Countess  of  Champagne,  complained  that  several  bishops  laid  interdicts 
"  .  .  .  motum  animi  potius  quam  zelum  rectitudinis  exequentes ".  Cf. 
Potth.,  1353.  (b)  Hard.,  V,  1361,  1372,  1377.  Hincmar  of  Laon 
ordered  churches  to  be  closed  in  case  he  should  be  punished  by  Hincmar 
of  Reims,  (c)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XIII,  37  (Potth.,  3723).  The  priests  of 
Soissons  complain  that  the  interdict  is  used  to  enforce  the  payment  of  exor- 
bitant taxes,  (d)  C.  3.  X.  de  poenis  5.  37.  (e)  Arch,  de  Reims,  II,  i, 
659.  Innocent  IV  rebukes  the  clergy  of  Reims  for  demanding  a  sum  of 
money  for  raising  the  interdict. 

117  Will.  Gemetic.,  Hist.  Norm.,  lib.  VI,  c.  3,  in  Rec.,  X,  191. 

118  Cone.  Toletan.,  683,0.  7. 

119  See  above,  n.  112. 


THE  LAYING  OF  AN  INTERDICT  37 

the  payment  of  taxes ;  12°  and  even  papal  legates  were  not 
guiltless  of  such  extortion.121  The  seriousness  of  these  abuses 
is  shown  by  the  frequency  of  conciliar  decrees  against  them, 
and  the  strength  of  the  tendency  to  lay  unjust  interdicts  ap- 
pears from  the  fact  that  papal  privileges  securing  one  against 
interdicts  laid  without  clear  and  good  cause  were  greatly 
desired.133 

Before  a  sentence  of  interdict  could  be  duly  laid,  the  regular 
processes  of  monition  and  citation  must  be  observed.128  One 
warning  was  necessary  to  make  a  sentence  valid,124  and  such 
admonition  was  as  a  rule  advisable ,  not  only  because  the  inter- 
dict was  the  last  resort,  but  also  because  the  interdict  was 
dangerous  to  the  church  and  was  to  be  avoided  if  a  threat 
would  have  the  desired  effect.  It  was  very  common  in  giving 
warning  to  indicate  how  soon  the  sentence  would  take  effect. 
This  was  done  either  by  setting  some  date  of  the  calendar,126  on 
which  the  offender's  grace  would  expire,  or  by  fixing  a  certain 

110  See  above,  note  1 16  c. 

111  (a)  C.   2.  de   sentent.  excom.    Extravag.    comm.    5.    10.     (b)  This 
abuse  still  continued:  Cone.  Marcic.,  1326,  c.  55;  Cone.  Pragens.,  1349, 
c.  12,  in  Ilarzheim,  IV,  384.      (c)  The  order  of  Boniface  VIII  was  later 
several  times  repeated  by  other  popes:  in  1356  by  Inn.  VI  (Quell.  Gesch. 
Stadt  Koln.,  IV,  417-418),  in  1435  by  Eugene  IV  (Chevalier,  Ord.  rela- 
tives au  Dauphine,  p.  8,  No.  61). 

m(a)  J-L.,  9934,  14349  (9251).  (b)  Potth.,  1451,  1540,  1722,  1883, 
2158,  3247,  4236,  4485,  4946.  (c)  Arch,  depart,  de  1'Yonne  (Auxerre), 
H.  14:  "  Personne  ne  pourra  publier  centre  Pabbe  et  religieux  de  S.  Jean 
sentence  d'interdit  ou  d'excom.  si  ce  n'est  pour  cause  raisonnable. " 

123  Kober,  XXII,  29ff. 

m  (a)  Rec.,  XI,  526.  Rowland,  case  No.  26.  (b)  J-L.,  5192  (3913), 
(c)  T-L.,  9737.  (d)  J-L.,  10156.  (e)  J-L.,  10479  (7078).  (f)  J-L., 
12248  (8286),  11846  (7923),  11847  (7924),  12705.  (g)  J-L.,  15461. 
(h)  J-L.,  16226.  (i)  J-L.,  16970.  (j)  Potth.,  552.  (k)  Potth.,  1713. 
Writing  of  the  interdict  of  France,  1200,  Innocent  said,  "...  terram 
tantum  post  frequentes  commonitiones  subjecimus  interdicto  .  .  .  ".  (1) 
Gesta,  c.  131.  "...  nisi  rex  diligenter  commonitus  acquiesceret, 
totum  regnum  Angliae  [1208]  subicerent  interdicto  .  .  .  ".  (m)  Inn. 
Ill,  Epp.,  XVI,  98  (Potth.,  4798.)  Interdict  laid  after  warning. 

125  (a)  J-L.,  5967.  (b)  J-L.,  6781  (4959).  Both  are  local  particular. 
(c)  J-L.,  6793  (4967).  Threat  of  personal  interdict,  (d)  J-L.,  6942. 
(e)  J-L.,  6987  (5098).  (f)  J-L.,  7114.  Local  particular,  (g)  J-L., 
9287. 


38  THE  INTERDICT 

number  of  days  of  grace  ;  three  ,126  fifteen  ,m  twenty  ,128  thirty  ,129 
forty  days,180  two  months,131  three  months,132  and  even  six 
months 133  constituted  the  limit  of  grace  on  this  or  that  occa- 
sion. The  sources  lead  one  to  believe  that  more  than  one 
warning  was  unusual,  but  in  the  cases  of  Nevers  (1145- 
55),134  England  (1170,  1173-1177,  i2o8),135'136  and  France 
(1200)  several  warnings  were  given.  The  interval  which  in 
these  cases  elapsed  between  the  different  warnings  argues  that 
the  admonitions  were  repeated,  not  because  of  a  desire  to 
observe  canonical  law,  but  because  the  church  hesitated  to 
take  the  step  of  laying  the  interdict.  Citation,  which  was 

l26Prov.  Cone.  Trev.,  1238,  c.  5,  in  Mansi,  Cone.,  XXIII,  480.  "Si 
autem  a  die  denuntiationis  captivatum  .  .  .  infra  triduum  non  restituerit, 
terra.  .  .  supponatur  interdicto." 

i"Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XII,  80  (Potth.,  3777). 

128  (a)  J-L.,  6948  (5078).     Local  particular,     (b)  J-L.,  9884.     Prob- 
ably personal,      (c)  Mat.  Hist.  Becket  (R.  Ser.),  VII,  377.     "...  in- 
fra viginti  dies  .    .    .  ".     In  the  same  letter,  however,  it  is  stated  later  on 
"  .    .    .infra  triginta  dies  .    .    .  ". 

129  (a)  J-L.,  5517  (4129).     (b)  J-L.,  5665  (4242).     Probably  personal. 
(c)   J-L.,   10066   (6878).     (d)   Inn.    Ill,    Epp.,   I,   347   (Potth.,  361). 
"...  infra  mensem  .    .    .  ".     (e)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  73  (Potth.,  1919). 
"...  infra  mensem  .    .    .  ".     (f)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  191,  192  (Potth., 
2064,  2065).     (g)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VIII,  84  (Potth.,  2530).     (h)  Marlot, 
Hist,  de  Reims,  III,  819,  No.  181.     "...  infra  mensem  .    .    .  ". 

wo  (a)  J-L.,  6926  (5062).  (b)  J-L.,  11842  (7919).  (c)  J-L.,  12821. 
"  .  .  .infra  quadraginta  dies  .  .  .  ". 

lsl(a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  355  (Potth.,  351).  (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VII, 
171  (Potth.,  2344).  "...  infra  duos  menses  .  .  .  ".  (c)  Inn.  Ill, 
Epp.,  XIV,  126  (Potth.,  4332).  (d)  Cone.  Campanic.,  1238,  c.  17,  in 
Mansi,  Cone.,  XXIII,  491.  "  Per  duos  menses  .  .  .  expectentur;  quibus 
elapsis  castra  ipsorum  supponatur  interdicto;  et  nisi  infra  alios  duos  menses 
resipuerint,  in  tota  terra  sua  interdicti  sententia  promulgetur."  A  total  of 
four  months  was  to  elapse  before  the  local  general  interdict  should  be 
issued. 

132  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XI,  87  (Potth.,  3418). 

133 Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XI,  223  (Potth.,  3618). 

134 J-L.,  9545,  6624,  8986,  9544,  9619,  9784  (6748),  9786,  10066, 
10067,  etc- 

185  J-L.,  11405  (7625),  May  25,  1168;  Mat.  Hist.  Becket  (R.  Ser.}, 
VII,  I04f.,  February  2,  1169;  J-L.,  11710  (7825),  January  19,  1176; 
Mat.  Hist.  Becket  (R.  Ser.),  Ill,  462,  after  June,  14,  1170;  J-L.,  11846, 
11847,  September  13,  1170;  J-L.,  11842  (7919),  October  9,  1170. 

138 J-L.,  12248  (8286),  1173;  J-L.,  12705,  May  21,  1176.  J-L., 
12821,  April  30,  1177. 


THE  LAYING  OF  AN  INTERDICT  3g 

supposed  to  follow  an  unheeded  warning,  summoned  the  offend- 
ing party  to  appear  and  show  cause  why  the  interdict  should 
not  be  laid.  For  intractable  princes  there  usually  was  no 
citation,  since  there  was  no  means  of  compelling  appear- 
ance ,137  and  their  offences  were  generally  so  notorious  as  to 
leave  no  question  regarding  their  truth. 

Warning  and  citation  were  followed  by  the  promulgation  of 
the  interdict.  For  this  there  was  no  particular  formula,  the 
only  rule  being  that  the  form  used  must  be  clear  and  explicit. 
It  early  became  customary  to  put  the  sentence  in  writing,  and, 
wherever  possible,  read  it  to  the  guilty  party.  The  Council  of 
Lyons  determined  that  the  reasons  for  the  interdict  must  be 
clearly  stated ,  and  that  the  judge  must  give  the  condemned  an 
authentic  copy  of  the  sentence,  if  this  was  demanded,  within  a 
month.  Though  there  was  no  regular  formula138  to  be  used  in 
laying  the  interdict,  a  fairly  common  practice  was  developed. 
Thus,  later  formulae  usually  stated  what  was  the  cause  for  the 
interdict,  what  services  were  forbidden,  and  sometimes  how 
long  the  sentence  was  to  last  ;1S9>  uo  not  infrequently  they  en- 
joined obedience  to  the  sentence  upon  this  or  that  indi- 
vidual,1*1 and  specified  the  penalty  for  non-observance.142  The 

1S7Kober,  XXII,  32!.  However,  Philip  Augustus  was  summoned  to 
Dijon. 

138  (a)  Du  Cange,  G/ossar.,  under  "  Interdictum  ".     Besides  the  list  in 
Du  Cange  see  the  following:   (b)  Pflugk-Httg.,  Ac/a,  III,  233.     Form  of 
interdict  used  by  Alexander  III.      (c)  Ibid. ,  288.     Form  used  by  Lucius 
III.      (d)  Ibid.,  332-333.     Form  used  by  Urban   III.      (e)  Ibid.,  344. 
Form  used  by  Gregory  VIII.     (f)  See  also  the  following  note. 

139  Below  are  cited  a  number  of   typical  formulae.      (a)  J-L. ,   3304. 
Amalfi,  879.     (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  V,  155  (Potth.,  1813).     (c)  Rec.  XIX, 
491  (Potth.,  3115).     (d)  Inn.   Ill,  Epp.,  XI,   143  (Potth.,  3501).     (e) 
Arch.  Adm.  de  Reims,  II,  555.      (f)  Lebeuf,  Mem.   Diocese  d'Auxerre, 
II,  69-71.      (g)  Martene,  Thesaurus,  IV,  147. 

140  A  sentence  was  supposed  to  last  until  it  accomplished  its  purpose, 
"...  usque  ad  condignam  satisfactionem  ",  J-L.,  11891. 

141  (a)    J-L.,    11847.      "•    •    -  sententiam   firmiter   et  inconcusse   ob- 
servetis  .    .    .  ".     (b)  J-L.,  11891.     "  .    .    .  sent.  .    .    .  firmiter  et  invio- 
labiliter  observetis  et  ab  aliis  faciatis  inviolabiliter  observari."     (c)  Potth. 
1248.     (d)  Potth.,  1250.     "...  teneatis  firmiter  et  servetis  .    .    .  inter- 
dict! .    .    .  sentent."     (e)    Potth.,    1904.     (f)    Inn.    Ill,    Epp,,  VI,   73 
(Potth.,  1919).     (g)  Etc.,  etc. 

142  See  formulae  cited  in  notes  138  and  139. 


40  THE  INTERDICT 

solemnity  and  ceremony  with  which  an  interdict  was  promul- 
gated naturally  varied  with  circumstances,  and  it  is  possible 
that  the  highly  imaginative  and  dramatic  accounts  by  modern 
writers  have  some  truth.  It  is  exceedingly  unfortunate  that 
the  chroniclers  of  the  past,  ignorant  of  the  demands  of  scien- 
tific history ,  failed  to  leave  to  present-day  writers  so  much  as 
a  single  account  which  could  be  cited  in  foot-notes.143 

Promulgation  was  necessarily  followed  by  publication  of  the 
sentence  of  interdict,  whether  the  sentence  was  ferendae  or 
latae^  This  constituted  legal  notice,  without  which  the  peo- 
ple could  not  be  expected  to  know  that  they  were  inter- 
dicted.145 Such  publication  could  be  given  by  reading  the 
sentence  in  a  church  or  by  posting  it  in  a  public  place.  There 
was  sometimes  difficulty  in  giving  the  necessary  notice  : 146  in 
1606,  all  messengers  were  excluded  from  Venice;147  in  1170, 
Henry  II  gave  orders  to  his  port-reeves  to  allow  no  bearer  of 
notice  of  interdict  to  enter  England,  and  to  treat  such  an  one 
as  a  public  enemy ; U8  in  1255,  no  one  could  be  found  to  carry 
the  tidings  of  interdict  into  Liege ,  and  the  task  was  finally  put 
upon  a  woman  and  a  boy,  the  latter  of  whom  succeeded  in 
delivering  the  message.149  It  seems  justifiable  to  say  that  the 

148  Hurter,  Innocenz  III,  and  Capefigue,  Hist,  de  Philippe  Auguste, 
give  a  very  dramatic  account  of  the  laying  of  the  interdict  on  France. 
The  latter  cites  as  his  source  "De  Legato  miss,  in  Franc.,  Duchesne,  V, 
754",  which  source  is  the  same  as  Gesta,  c.  51.  The  accounts  of  Hurter 
and  Capefigue  both  go  beyond  the  sources. 

144  Const.  Martin  V  "  Ad  Vitanda  ". 

145  Several  instances  of  publication  follow:   (a)  Gesta,  c.  51.     (b)  Matt. 
Par.,  in  Rec.,  XVII,  688.     (c)  Cone.  Salzb.,  1274,  c.  18,  in  Hard.,  Cone., 
VII,  726.     (d)  Cone.  Arelat.,  1275,  c.  5,  in  Hard.,  Cone.,  VII,  728. 

146  See  Appendix,  case  71.     Interdict  on  Bremen. 

147  Tract,   de  Interdicto,   Proposit.   II.     The    Seven  Theologians  claim 
that  the  interdict  was  not  valid  because  it  was  not  published,  as  is  evident 
from  the  fact  that  it  was  not  read  in  the  churches,  or  posted  anywhere; 
for  which  reason  the  people  could  not  be  expected  to  know  of  it.     That 
the  publication  was  prohibited  and  prevented  bears  no  weight,  for  it  has 
always  been  an  accepted  rule  of  the  church  that  the  publication  of  an  inter- 
dict must  precede,  if  the  sentence  is  to  be  valid. 

148  (al  Gerv.  Canter.,  Gesta  Reg.  (R.  Ser.),  II,  79.     (b)  Gerv.  Canter., 
Opp.  Hist.  (R.  Ser.},  I,  234. 

149  Hocsemius,  Hist.  Pont.  Leod.  ad  an.  1255,  in  Chapeaville,  II,  287f. 


THE  LAYING  OF  AN  INTERDICT  4I 

canons ,  which  required  a  sentence  of  interdict  to  be  published 
to  make  it  valid,  were  unimportant  compared  with  the  prac- 
tical necessity  which  demanded  a  notice  in  order  to  secure 
observance.  Such  a  sentence  depended  for  its  effectiveness 
on  public  opinion,  and  the  public  has  no  opinion  on  matters 
of  which  it  has  no  knowledge.  Still  one  observes  no  reason- 
able distinction  in  the  non- legal  sources  15°  between  the  pro- 
mulgation and  the  publication  of  an  interdict,  except  perhaps 
in  later  centuries.  One  form  of  publication  is  that  which  is 
found  in  letters  to  various  prelates  or  ecclesiastics  notifying 
them  of  the  sentence  and  ordering  them  to  enforce  its  observ- 
ance.151 Another  form  is  publication  by  notaries  and  wit- 
nesses, a  practice  found  in  the  second  half  of  the  sixteenth 
century.152  Republications  of  the  sentence  to  secure  observance 
were  very  common.  The  usual  custom  was  to  republish  the 
interdict  every  Sunday  and  feast  day.163  In  France,  however, 
there  was  a  second  publication  two  months  after  the  first 
notice.154 

From  the  fact  that  warnings  and  citations  were  invariably 
given,  it  would  appear  that  no  offender  could  be  unjustly  sen- 

150  (a^  See  non-legal  sources  for  the  interdicts  under  Innocent  III.     (b) 
Gall.  Christ.,  X,  ii,  col.  60-6 1. 

151  (a)  J-L.,  9310  (6472).     (b)  J-L.,  11721-11727.      Cf.  Mat.  Hist. 
Becket  (R.  Ser.),  VII,  323^.,  etc.,  etc. 

152  Cone.   Mexican.,  1585,  lib.  I,  tit.  x,  c.  37,  in  Aguirre,  Cone.  Hisp., 
VI,   100.     "  Notarii  omnes  ...  ad  mandata  aliqua  intimanda,  seu  ad 
publicandum   censuras   excom.,  interdicti,  .    .      id   exsequantur  in   calce 
mandati  intimatione  et  publicatione  cum  testibus,  nee  non  eorum  subscrip- 
tione  appositis. " 

153  (a)    Inn.    Ill,    Epp.,    VI,    192    (Potth.,    2065).      ".    .    .interdicti 
.    -    .  sententias,  singulis  diebus  Dominicis  et  festivis,  pulsatis  campanis 

et  candelis  accensis,  tarn  in  cathedralibus  quam  aliis  parochialibus  .  .  - 
publican  solemniter  facientes,  et  vos  etiam  person aliter  publicantes."  (b1) 
Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VIII,  84  ( Potth.,  2530).  "Id  [sentence  of  interdict] 
autem,  singulis  diebus  Dominicis  et  festivis,  per  ecclesias  vestras,  et  vicinas 
dioeceses,  ac  terram  ipsius  [Philip  of  Suabia]  publican  solemniter  faciatis." 
(c^  Inn.  Opp.,  Ill,  1124,  No.  120  (Potth.,  2489).  (d)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp., 
XI,  26  (Potth.,  3324).  (e}  Aegidius  Aureavall.,  Gest.  Pont.  Leod.  ad 
an.  1212,  in  MGSS.,  XXV,  118.  Cf.  Vit.  Odiliae,  lib.  Ill,  6,  in 
MGSS.,  XXV,  178. 

15*Diceto  (X.  Ser.},ll,  68. 


42  THE  INTERDICT 

tenced ;  moreover  he  had  the  added  protection  afforded  by 
the  right  of  an  appeal  to  Rome.155  An  appeal  made  before 
the  interdict  was  promulgated  had  the  effect  of  preventing  any 
sentence  from  being  laid,  until  a  decision  had  been  rendered 
by  Rome  ;156  unless  perchance,  as  was  sometimes  the  case,  the 
right  of  appeal  had  been  denied  by  a  special  order.157  An  ap- 
peal made  after  the  issuing  of  a  sentence  had  no  suspensive 
effect ;  the  interdict  continued  in  force  while  the  appeal  was 
being  heard.  Appeals ,  however ,  were  frequently  disregarded,158 
which  probably  accounts  for  the  fact  that  the  right  of  appeal 
was  sometimes  granted  as  a  privilege.159  Not  only  the  person 
threatened  with  interdict,  but  also  the  agent  of  the  church, 
could  appeal  to  the  pope ;  at  the  Council  of  Soissons  the 
Archbishop  of  Rouen,  who  had  previously  been  authorized  to 
lay  an  interdict  on  England ,  hesitated  because  Becket's  mur- 
der had  altered  circumstances,  and  in  his  doubt  he  appealed 

m(a)  Ordonnances,  I,  39.  Cf.  Raumer,  Gesch.  Hohenst.,  VI,  162,  n. 
7.  In  France  under  Philip  IV  it  became  a  law  that  one  could  enter  in 
Parlement  "  appels  comme  d'abus  "  against  interdict  and  excommunica- 
tion. See  Viollet,  Hist.  Inst.  Politiq.,  II,  303-305. 

156  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  350  (Potth.,  364).  Any  sentence  of  interdict 
laid  after  appeal  shall  be  void,  (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XV,  124  (Potth., 
4536). 

167  (a)  Gesta  Hen.  II  (R.  Ser).,  I,  8.  "...  omni  appellatione  ces- 
sante  ..."  (bj  J-L.,  11808.  "...  omni  excusatione  et  appella- 
tione remota  ..."  (c)  J-L.,  11847.  (d)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  249 
(Potth.,  263).  (e)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XII,  120  (Potth.,  3843).  (f)  Gesta, 
c.  84.  "...  appellatione  postposita  ..." 

158  (a)  Mat.  Hist.  Becket  (R.   Ser.},  VII,  444.     "...  nee  appella- 
tionem  eorum  attendens  .    .    .  toti  terrae  .    .    .  indixit."     (b)  Steph.  Tor- 
nac.,  Ep.  233,  in  Migne,  Pat.  Lai.,  211,  col.  501-503.     "  .    .      cum  nos 
significaremus  eis  appellationem  non  teneri  ..."      (c)    Inn.  Ill,  Epp., 
I,  58  (Potth.,  65).     "...  sententiam  quam  in  te  post  appellationem 
interpositam  eumdem  cardinalem  tulisse    dicebas   .    .    .    '        (d)    Chron. 
de  S.  Denis,  ad  an.  1199,  in  Rec.,  XVII,  387.     "  .    .    .  li  legaz,  qui  pas 
ne  deporta  1'apel,  jeta  la  sentence  ..."     (e)  Gesta,  c.  116.     "... 
post  appellationem  nostram  iteratam,  .    .    .  sententiam  excom.  in  terram 
nostram  promulgavit  ..."     (f)   Hocsemius,  Hist.  Pont.  Leod. ,  in  Cha- 
peaville,  II,  286f.     (g)  Kober,  XXII,  32f. 

159  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VII,  171  (Potth.,  2344).    "...  sublato  appel- 
lationis  obstaculo  ..."       (b)  Gesta,  c.  84.     (c)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  42 
(Potth.,  1883).     (d)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  X,  93  (Potth.,  3140).     (e)  Inn.  Ill, 
Epp.,  X,   121   (Potth.,  3174).     (f)  Inn.   Ill,  Epp.,  XIV,  45   (Potth., 
4236).     Local  particular. 


THE  LA  YING  OF  AN  INTERDICT  43 

to  the  pope,160  probably  with  the  design  of  shifting  the  burden 
of  a  decision  to  his  Holiness. 

A  tabulation  of  the  results  obtained  from  the  sources  of  the 
period  from  1198  to  1216  shows  that  within  these  eighteen 
years  at  least  fifty-seven 101  local  general  interdicts  were  in 
force.  This  figure  is  not  unexpectedly  large,  still  it  is  of  sur- 
prising magnitude  compared  with  the  seventy-five  interdicts 
given  as  the  number  from  the  fourth  century  to  ii59.162  This 
half-hundred  of  interdicts  does  not  nearly  account  for  all  evi- 
dences of  this  form  of  discipline  during  these  eighteen  years. 
The  actual  number  of  discovered  interdicts  is  increased  by 
about  half  as  many  threats — threats  which  unless  heeded  were 
followed  by  execution,  and  can  therefore  be  included  in  the 
number  of  instances  in  which  interdict  was  used.168  To  these 
must  be  added  six  instances  of  probable  interdict.  These 
probable  interdicts,  increased  by  the  twenty-seven  threats  and 
added  to  the  number  of  known  interdicts,  bring  the  uses  of  the 
local  general  interdict  during  the  pontificate  of  Innocent  III 
to  the  appreciable  total  of  ninety.  But,  even  if  we  grant,  as 
we  have  just  done ,  that  there  was  an  interdict  in  each  possible 
case ,  we  have  not  completed  the  numbers  of  the  discipline  ; 
for,  besides  these  instances  in  which  the  interdict  certainly  or 
possibly  existed,  we  find  other  traces  of  it — traces  often  indis- 
tinct, but  occasionally  of  a  character  to  put  it  beyond  question 
that  the  available  sources  of  our  period  record  only  a  fraction 
of  the  actual  total.164  The  Bishop  of  Ferrara  asked  the  pope 

160Gesta  Hen.  II  (R.  Ser.),  I,  17. 

161  The  cases  represented  by  these  figures  are  arranged  in  the  appendix 
under  the  heads  of  actual  cases  of  interdict,  possible  cases,  and  threats. 
Not  only  papal,  but  episcopal,  and  all  other  interdicts  are  included. 

162  Dr.  Rowland's  dissertation  gives  this  number.     In  his  list  of  inter- 
dicts are  some  which  such  writers  as  Kober  and  Hinschius  do  not  consider 
interdicts,  and  others  are  omitted  which  they  mention  as  interdicts. 

163  There  are  actually  27  threats  known. 

184  The  author  must  at  this  point  admit  that  he  attempted  to  make  a 
complete  list  of  the  interdicts  between  the  years  1198  and  1216.  That  this 
attempt  would  be  futile  he  surmised,  and  had  it  rather  discouragingly 
demonstrated  when,  after  he  had  searched  for  interdicts  as  widely  as  pos- 
sible for  nearly  two  years,  he  was  given  a  most  useful  reference  by  a  friend 


44  THE  INTERDICT 

for  information  about  proper  conduct  "  when  the  citizens  of 
Ferrara  should  be  bound  with  sentences  of  excommunication 
and  interdict "  ; 165  Walter  of  Coventry  states  that  Innocent  real- 
ized that  ' '  in  his  day  many  lands  had  been  interdicted  "  ; 166 
an  accusation  of  Blanche,  Countess  of  Champagne,  made 
against  the  injustice  of  the  prelates  of  her  principality,  inci- 
dentally testifies  that  sentences  of  interdict  were  not  few  in 
number  ; 16T  bishops,  from  various  parts  of  Christendom  as  far 
as  can  be  told,  complained  that  the  Templars  violated  their 
interdicts,  another  testimony  to  the  frequency  of  these  sen- 
tences ; 168  the  neighborhood  of  Coimbra  labored  under  inter- 
dict so  often,  according  to  Innocent  III  himself,  that  it  be- 
came important  to  distinguish  between  the  general  and  the 
particular  sentences  ; 16fl  and  the  officials  and  citizens  of  Laon 
complained  to  the  Roman  pontiff  that  churchmen  often  af- 
flicted them  and  their  lands  with  sentences  of  excommunica- 
tion and  interdict.170  Finally,  if  interdicts  were  uncommon, 
why  should  privileges  of  exemption  from  interdict  be  so  numer- 
ous and  so  greatly  desired?  All  this  evidence  leads  to  one 
conclusion,  that  interdicts  were  very,  very  frequent. 

The  duration  of  the  interdict  varies ; m  the  very  nature  of 

to  whose  knowledge  it  had  come  in  the  course  of  a  casual  conversation 
with  a  fellow-traveler  in  the  Alps.  This  is  not  the  only  time  that  valuable 
information  was  obtained  by  a  lucky  chance,  and  the  inference  is  natural 
that  many  undiscovered  chances  still  exist. 

165  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XI,  267  (Potth.,  3666). 

166Coventr.  ad  an.  1213  (R.  Ser.,  58),  II,  214. 

167  See  Appendix,  case  78.     Interdict  on  the  lands  of  the  Countess  of 
Champagne. 

168  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XI,  121  (Potth.,  3175). 

169  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  554  (Potth.,  592). 

170 Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XV,  124  (Potth.,  4536;  cf.  4256). 

171  (a)  About  six  years:  England,  1208-14.  (b)  Five  years:  Oxford,  see 
Appendix,  case  81.  Interdict  on  Oxford,  (c)  Five  years:  Leon,  see 
Appendix,  case  52.  Interdict  on  Leon,  (d)  Four  years:  Hist.  gen.  de 
Languedoc,  IX,  190-192.  (e)  Three  years:  Bellarmin,  Risposta,  Proposit. 
VII.  "  In  Polonia  duro  al  tempo  di  Papa  Greg.  VII  1'interdetto  tre  anni 
..."  (f)  Two  years:  Auctor  Anon,  ad  an.  1259-1261,  in  Ludewig, 
IX,  8l.  (g)  About  two  years:  Florence,  Lea,  Inquisition,  II,  278,  280. 
(h)  About  two  years:  Treviso,  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  Ill,  39  (Potth.,  1160). 


THE  LAYING  OF  AN  INTERDICT  45 

the  discipline  and  the  importance  of  the  offence  or  the  of- 
fender makes  differences  in  duration  inevitable.  To  strike  an 
average  length,  even  granting  that  one  had  at  his  disposal 
a  sufficient  number  of  cases,  is  impossible  unless  one  could 
measure  and  equalize  every  attendant  circumstance.  The 
canon  law  of  the  matter  is  very  simple  and  very  practical,  but 
very  indeterminate  :  an  interdict  remains  in  force  until  its 
object  is  accomplished.  One  interdict  lasted  less  than  a  day,172 
another  so  long  that  the  people  lost  their  reverence  for  church 
services.173  The  cathedral  of  Rouen  submitted  to  authority  in 
twelve  days,171  Portugal  and  Auxerre  were  rebellious  for  twelve 
years.175  Limoges  was  under  interdict  for  eight  months,176 
Denmark  for  nine  years.177  Mantua  lay  under  interdict  for 
thirty-three  years,178  and  a  chapel  in  Maidenhead  for  fifty 

(i)  About  two  years:  Oxford,  Mun.  Acad.  Oxon.  (R.  Ser.},  190.  (j ) 
About  seventeen  months:  Cologne,  Winkelmann,  Ph.  v.  Schwaben,  II, 
393-396.  (k)  About  eighteen  months:  Cremona,  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VII, 
163  (Potth.,  2338).  (1)  About  one  year:  Rouen,  Chron.  Rothomag.  ad 
an.  1233,  in  Labbe,  Nova  Bibl.,  I,  376.  (m)  About  one  year:  Toulouse, 
Hist.  gen.  de  Languedoc,  IX,  786.  (n)  About  eight  months:  France, 
(o)  About  six  months:  Metz,  Alber.  Trium  Font.,  450,  cited  from 
Raumer,  Gesch.  Hohenst.,  VI,  168,  n.  7.  (p)  About  eight  months: 
Limoges,  Varia  Chron.  Fragm.  ad  an.  1202,  in  Duples-Agier,  Chroniq., 
192-193.  (q)  About  twelve  days:  Cathedral  of  Rouen,  Chron.  Rothomag. 
ad  an.  1211,  in  Labbe,  Nova  Eibl.,  1,  372.  "  .  .  .  Cathedralem 
Ecclesiam  interdixit  in  crastino  Octavarum  Nativitatis  B.  Virginis  et  fuit 
interdicta  usque  in  diem  S.  Michaelis. "  (r)  Etc.,  etc. 

172  Chron.  Mayors  and  Sheriffs  of  London,  1266,  p.  97. 

173  (a)  Gloss  on  Const.  "Alma   Mater"  de   Sent.   Excom.,  VI.     An 
interdict  of  thirty  or  forty  years.     Cited  from  Pithou,  Des  Interdicts  Eccl.^ 
p.    18.     (b)    Tractat.    de   Interdicto,    Proposit.    IV.     "...  timendum 
[est]  ne  idem  evenerit  malum,  quod  alias  in  Urbino  contigit:  quae  urbs 
tamdiu  ab  interdictum  sacris  exercitiis  fuit  destituta  ut  post  restitutionem 
celebrationis  missae    et    aliorum  officiorum   sacrorum,   difficillimum   fuerit 
populum  ad  earn  audiendam,  eique  debitam  praestanstandam  [sic]  reve- 
rentia  assuefacere." 

174  See  above,  n.  171,  q. 

175  (a)  Mariana,  De  Rebus  Hisp.,  lib.   13,  c.   12.     Portugal,  by  Alex- 
ander IV,   "  Interdictum  tenuisse  duodecim  annos   scribunt."     (b)   See 
Appendix,  case  88.     Interdict  on  Auxerre. 

176  See  above,  n.  171,  p. 

177  Auctor  Anon,  ad  an.  1266-1275,  in  Ludewig,  IX,  81. 

178  Maffei,  Annal.  di  Mantova,  592,  cited  from  Raumer,  Gesch.  Jfohenst., 
VI,  299. 


46  THE  INTERDICT 

years.179  Such  contrasts  and  such  lengths  are,  however,  un- 
usual. From  the  cases  examined  a  common  length  seems  to 
be  from  one  to  two  years.180 

The  territorial  extent  of  the  interdict  was  limited  only  by 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  authority  promulgating  the  sentence. 
Kingdoms,181  duchies  and  counties,182  dioceses  or  provinces,188 
cities,184  including  suburbs  and  all  outlying  buildings,185  lands 

179  (a)  Collect.  Topog.  et  Cental,  VI  (1840),  4;ff.     Roger  de  Mortival, 
in  1324,  requested  permission  from  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  to  re- 
move an  interdict  laid  on  a  chapel  in  Maidenhead  about  fifty  years  before. 
The  archbishop  had  no  knowledge  of  the  interdict,  but  granted  the  re- 
quested permission,     (b)   Inn.   Ill,  Epp.,  XVI,  20  (Potth.,  4678).     It 
was  reported  to  Innocent  III  that  lands  formerly  fertile  had  ceased  to 
yield  abundantly;   and  its  inhabitants  thought  that  this  resulted  "... 
quia  terra  eadem  olim,  sicut  fama  est,  .    .    .  supposita  fuit  sententiae  inter- 
dicti,  quae  non  creditur  fuisse  postmodum  relaxata."    The  pope  was  re- 
quested to  relax  the  interdict  and  he  did  so. 

180  See  above,  n.  171. 

181  (a)  Armenia,   see  Appendix,  case   68.     (b)   Cyprus,    Potth.,  956. 
(c)  Poland,  Bellarmin,  Risposta,  Proposit.  VII  (see  p.  44,  n.  171,  e.)     (d) 
Hungary,   Felten,    Greg.  IX,   192.     (e)  Bohemia,  Raynald.,  Anna/.,  I, 
1222,   L,  and  1217,  XLIII.     (f)  Empire,  threat,  J-L.,   16970,  16971. 
(g)   France,   1200.     See  Appendix,  case  57.     (h)  Aragon,  threat,  J-L., 
12135   (8160).     (i)  Leon,  see  Appendix,  case   52.     (j)  Castile,  threat, 
Rec.,  XI,  526.     (k)  Portugal,  threat,  J-L.,  6987  (5098).     See  also  Ap- 
pendix, case  52.     (1)   England,  1170,  J-L.,    11710(7825)  and   (1208). 
(m)  Scotland,  J-L.,  13710  (8813),  14613  (9465).     (n)  Denmark,  threat, 
J-L.,  16938;   and  Auctor  Anon.,  in  Ludewig,  IX,  81. 

182  (a)  Thuringia,  threat,  lands  of  the  Landgrave.     See  Appendix,  case 
21.     (b)  Palatinate,  threat,  lands  of  the  Count.     See  Appendix,  case  25. 

(c)  Brabant,  see  Appendix,  case  75.     (d)  Bavaria,  Potth.,  10730.     See 
also  Appendix,  case  22.     (e)    Austria,  threat,  see  Appendix,  case  27. 
(f)  Normandy.     Gesta  Hen.  II  (JR.  Ser.),  I,  16.     (g)  Poitou,  ibid,     (h) 
Anjou,  ibid,     (i)  Brittany,  ibid,     (j)  Toulouse,  see  Appendix,  case  85. 
(k)  Nevers,  threat,  see  Appendix,  case  12.     (1)  Champagne,  lands  of  the 
Countess,   see   Appendix,  case  78.       (m)   Namur,  threat,  lands   of  the 
Count,  see  Appendix,  case  23.     (n)  Blois,  see  Appendix,  case  77. 

183  (a)  Olmiitz,  J-L.,  8221  (5816).     (b)  Prague,  Potth.,  5582,  5714, 
5729»  5739.  etc.     (c)  Gap,  J-L.,  4536.     (d)  Laon,  J-L.,  16303.     (e) 
Rouen:   (i)  J-L.,  12552;   (2)  Chron.  Rothomag.  ad  an.  1233,  in  Labbe, 
Nova  £ibl.,  I,  376.     (f)  Canterbury,  J-L.,  12705.     (g)  York,  Potth.,  682. 

184  In  the  East:  (a)  Acre,  Rohricht,  Gesch.  Kgr.  Jerusalem,  II,  832- 
834,  note,     (b)  Joppa,  threat,  J-L.,  11383  (7612). 

In  the  Teutonic  part  of  the  Empire:   (c)  Metz,  see  Appendix,  case  41. 

(d)  Cologne,  see  Appendix,  case  76.     (e)  Liege,  Mansi,  Cone.,  XXII, 
9,  c.  2. 

In  Italy:  (f)  Naples,  J-L.,  3012,  3046,  3089,  3090.     (g)  Amalfi,  J-L., 
3344.     (h)  Benevento:  (i)  Annal.  Benev.  ad  an.  uoo,  in  AfGSS.,  Ill, 


THE  LAYING  OF  AN  INTERDICT 


47 


belonging  to  a  chapter,186  private  lands  as  distinguished  from 
sovereignties,187  parishes,188  churches,189  chateaux,190  and  even 
altars191  were  interdicted.  The  districts  affected  were  not 
necessarily  contiguous.192  Selling,  transferring,  or  in  any  way 

183;  cf.  Hinschius,  V,  22,  n.  i;  (2)  J-L.,  4144;  Rowland,  case  No. 
24.  (i)  Ferrara,  J-L.,  7144.  (j)  Verona,  J-L.,  8940.  Cf.  J-L.,  9169 
(6373)-  (k)  Rome,  Jaffe,  Bibl.  Rer.  Ger.,  II,  108.  (1)  Lucca,  J-L., 
13628.  (m)  Lodi,  J-L.,  14801.  (n)  Rimini,  threat,  J-L.,  15461.  (o) 
Treviso,  Potth.,  1160.  (p)  Orvieto,  threat,  Potth.,  3777.  (q)  Bergamo, 
Potth.,  3962.  (r)  Capua,  see  Appendix,  case  72.  (s)  Milan,  Potth., 
5329.  (t)  Piacenza,  Potth.,  5329.  (u)  Mantua,  Maffei,  Annal.  di 
Mantova,  592.  (v)  Florence,  Lea,  Inquisition,  II,  278-281.  (w) 
Girgenti,  Clemens  XI,  Const.  "  Ad  Augendam",  in  Bullar.  Rom.,  VIII, 
185.  (x)  Catania,  ibid,  (y)  Lipari,  ibid. 

In  France:  (z)  Beauvais:  (i)  J-L.,  4854  (3616),  called  anathema;  (2) 
J-L.,  10827.  (aa)  Montpellier,  J-L.,  8186.  (hb)  Beziers,  Newburgh, 
Hist.  Rer.  {R.  Ser.},  I,  128-129.  (cc)  Toulouse,  J-L.,  11489  (7678). 
(dd)  Arras,  J-L.,  13750.  (ee)  Aries,  J-L.,  15704,  called  excommunica- 
tion. (ff)  Reims,  Marlot,  Hist,  de  Reims,  III,  798,  et  passim,  (gg) 
Auxerre,  Hist.  Episc.  Autiss.,  LXIV,  in  Labbe,  Nova  Bibl.,  I,  506. 

In  Spain:  (hh)  Toledo,  see  below,  n.  209.  (iij  Tortosa,  Potth.,  6643, 
25466,  664b,  3234. 

In  Northern  Africa:  (jj)  Carthage,  threat,  J-L.,  4793  (3557),  called  ex- 
communication. 

In  England  :   (kk)  Oxford,  see  Appendix,  case  81.     (11)  London,  Potth., 


. 
This  is  by  no  means  a  complete  list  of  interdicted  cities. 

186  (a)  See  above,  n.  17.  (b)  Chron.  Mayors  and  Sheriffs  of  London, 
1268,  p.  113. 

186  Marlot,  Hist,  de  Reims,  III,  623,  No.  169.     The  lands  of  the  chapter 
of  Reims  were  interdicted  by  the  Archdeacon  Ottobonus. 

187  Private  lands:    (a)    Ours,    J-L.,    6441.      (b)     "Rubeus",    J-U, 
6942.     (c)   Certain    knights,   J-L.,   9554   (6630).     (d)    William,  J-L., 
17128.     (e)   Murderers  of  the  Bishop  of  Wiirzburg,  Potth.,  1813.     (f) 
See  also  J-L.,  8540  (6040),  5469,  5517  (4129),  6926  (5062),  7125  (5162), 
7202  (5208),  10479  (7078). 

Sovereignty:  (g)  J-L.,  12821.  Alexander  III  gave  his  legate  instruc- 
tions that  if  Henry  failed  to  meet  certain  demands  "...  in  regnum  et 
in  terram  ejus  .  .  .  interdict!  sententiam  proferas". 

188  Quell.  Gesch.  Stadt.  Koln.,  IV,  103-104.     An  interdict  for  a  parish 
is  ordered  by  John  XXII. 

189  The  following  are  local  particular  interdicts:   (a)  J-L,  6483,  8647 
(6093),  5967»  10158  (6926).     Churches,     (b)  J-L.,  8896  (6231),  cathe- 
dral of  Bourges.     (c)  J-L.,  9319  (6472),  17434,  monasteries. 

190  (a)    "Castrum   Branense  ",   J-L.,    15920.     (b)    »  Castrum   Albini- 
acense",  J-L.,  14853. 

191  An  altar  in  the  church  of  St.  George,  Genoa,  J-L.,  I5758a. 

192  (a)  J-L.,  12705.     The  county  of  Poitou  and  the  province  of  Canter- 
bury were  threatened  simultaneously  for  a  single  offence  of  the  same  per- 
son.    (b)  Potth.,  351.     England  and  France  were  threatened  with  the 
same  interdict. 


48  THE  INTERDICT 

alienating  a  part  of  the  district  did  not  remove  the  sentence , 
nor  was  a  church  built  during  the  interdict  exempt ;  added 
territory,  however,  suffered  no  deprivation  of  services.193  All 
persons  of  a  locality,  even  the  one  who  laid  the  sentence, 
were  affected,  but  parishioners  from  an  interdicted  district 
could  worship  in  a  neighboring  parish  until  the  Council  of 
Cologne  (1279)  required  priests  before  beginning  services  to 
ask  whether  any  present  were  from  an  interdicted  place,  and  if 
so  to  expel  them.194  This  rule  remained  in  force  until  Boni- 
face VIII  restored  the  early  practice  except  for  those  who 
were  responsible  for  the  interdict.198 

The  geographical  dispersion  of  the  interdict  depended  on 
the  geographical  extent  of  church  power  and  the  political 
status  of  the  church  within  those  limits.  Nearly  all  of  the 
important  countries  of  Western  Europe  were  threatened,181"1* 
if  not  actually  interdicted,  in  the  last  half  of  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury or  the  first  half  of  the  thirteenth.  Germany 195  and  the 
principalities  which  composed  it  were  interdicted  much  less 
than  other  countries.  The  scarcity  of  episcopal  interdicts  in 
Germany  has  been  accounted  for  by  Dr.  Rowland,  who  sur- 
mises that  the  German  prelates  used  their  extraordinary  tem- 
poral power  instead  of  their  spiritual  weapons  to  enforce  obe- 
dience.196 The  paucity  of  papal  threats  and  interdicts  to  1 198, 
at  least,  must  be  explained  on  the  ground  that  the  Ghibelline 
sympathies  of  the  clergy  doomed  any  papal  action  to  failure. 
In  that  year  Innocent  III  secured  the  sympathy  of  a  portion 
of  the  German  clergy,  and  from  that  time  interdicts  were 
more  frequent.  This  circumstance  reveals  an  interesting  feat- 
ure of  the  interdict;  since  it  depended  so  largely  for  its 
effectiveness  on  the  state  of  the  public  mind,  it  was  more 
likely  to  be  effective  in  a  friendly  than  in  a  hostile  community. 

195  Kober,  XXI,  2928. 

194  (a)  Gerbert,  Epp.,  93,  in  Rec.t  X,  420.  "Quod  si  is  locus  interdicto 
vestro  .  .  .  iure  tenetur  astrictus  liceret  innocentibus  paroechianis  ad  alia 
transmigrare  loca  suisque  legaliter  uti  sacris."  (b)  Cone.  Colon.,  1279, 
c.  18,  in  Hard.,  VII,  835. 

196  Cf.  J-L.,  16970,  16971.  19«  Rowland,  Interdict,  chap.  in. 


THE  LAYING  OF  AN  INTERDICT  4g 

No  one  understood  this  more  perfectly  than  Innocent  III,  but 
he  was  too  astute  not  to  realize  that  undue  use  of  the  interdict 
in  Guelf  communities  might  lead  to  the  estrangement  and 
desertion  of  the  papal  cause,  and  therefore  he  used  his  power 
with  discretion. 

East  of  the  Empire,  interdicts  were  laid  on  Armenia,197  Cy- 
prus,198 Joppa,199Acre,200  Poland,201  and  Hungary.203  In  the 
West  they  were  used  most  frequently  in  Italy,  France,  and 
Spain.203  Even  Northern  Africa  did  not  remain  untouched, 
for  Gregory  VII  threatened  the  clergy  and  the  people  of  the 
diocese  of  Carthage  with  the  interdict.204  England,205  Scot- 
land j208  and  Wales  ,207  though  insular,  were  not  immune ,  and 
Denmark  learned  to  know  the  interdict  by  repeated  experi- 
ence.208 Whether  this  discipline,  which  flourished  so  long  and 
so  widely  in  Europe,  ever  crossed  the  Atlantic  to  America  is  a 
question  which  has  as  yet  had  no  positive  answer.  The  late 
date  to  which  the  interdict  endured  in  Spain 209  makes  it  seem 
very  reasonable  and  possible  that  it  was  carried  to  Spanish 
America,  though  no  traces  have  been  found  of  it  except  the 
mention  given  it  in  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Mexico,210 
which  indeed  lends  color  to  the  view  that  America,  too,  saw  the 
local  interdict. 

197  See  Appendix,  interdict  on  Armenia,  case  68. 
198Potth.,  956.  199J-L.,  11383  (7612). 

200  Rohricht,  Gesch   Kgr.  Jerusalem,  II,  832-834,  n. 

201  Bellarmin,  Risposta,  Proposit.  VII. 

202  (a)  Felten,  Greg.  IX,  p.   192.     (b)  Cf.  above,  nn.  181-184,  187. 

203  Cf.  above,  n.  184. 

204  J-L.,  4793  (3557),  4794  (3558),  called  excommunication. 

205  (a)  Potth.,  2344.     (b)  See  above,  nn.  181,  183,  184. 

206  See  above,  nn.  181,  182. 

207  Annal.  Waverl.  ad  an.  1216,  in  Annal.  Monast.  (R.  Ser.},  II,  286. 

208  (a)  J-L.,   16938,  threat,     (b)    Potth.,   9521,  threat,     (c)    Revised 
Formulary  of  Benedict  XII,  F.  44.     (d)  Auctor  Anon.,  in  Ludewig,  IX, 
81  -83.     One  interdict  lasted  from  1259  to  1261;   a  second,  from  1266  to 
1275.     (e)  With  the  use  of  interdict  in  the  Greek  Catholic  Church  the 
present  research  is  not  concerned. 

209  Lea,  Inquisition,  I,  514,  shows  that  there  was  an  interdict  on  Toledo 
in  1720. 

810  Hard.,  X,  1726. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  INTERDICT  IN  FORCE. 

ISSUING  a  sentence  did  not  always  insure  its  observance.  If 
it  was  not  observed,  the  church  appealed  first  of  all  to  the 
religious  sensibilities  of  the  people.  In  one  case  the  clergy 
were  given  the  power  to  remove  the  cross  from  the  church  and 
pronounce  imprecations ; l  in  another  they  were  commanded 
to  depart  from  the  accursed  place.2  Gregory  of  Tours  reports 
that  brambles  were  placed  before  the  church,3  and  the  "  Songe 
du  Vergier  "  complains  that  the  altars  were  uncovered.4  Narni 
was  threatened  with  the  loss  of  her  bishop,5  and  Parma  was 
transferred  to  another  jurisdiction.6  Men  were  released  from 
oaths  taken  with  a  design  of  violating  the  interdict.7  At 
Liege,  the  crucifix  and  the  images  of  the  holy  saints  and 
martyrs  were  wreathed  with  thorns  and  cast  upon  the  ground.8 

1  Quell.  Gesch.  Stadt  Koln^  II,  273.     Anyplace  in  which  an  ecclesiastic 
is  detained  captive  for  three  days  is  to  be  interdicted:   "  Si  vero  per  octo 
dies  liberati  non  fuerint,  cum  bona  voluntate  nostra  omnes  ecclesiae  cruces 
deponant  et  si  per  quindenam  adhuc  perduraverit,  extunc  fient  impreca- 
tiones  de  consilio  Priorum  qui  commode  haberi  poterunt,  ad  ulteriora  pro- 
cessuri  cum  aliis  solempnitatibus  cum  consilio  eorundem  Priorum  et  Capi- 
tuli  Coloniensis." 

2  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XI,  143  (Potth.,  3501). 
8  Greg.  Turon,  In  Glor.  Confess.,  c.  70. 

4  Le  Songe  du  Vergier,  lib.  I,  c.  1 79. 

5  See  above,  n.  2. 

6 Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  393  (Potth.,  399). 

7  Mat.  Hist.  Becket  (R.  Ser.),  VII,  22of. 

8  (a)  Vitae  Odiliae,  ad  an.  1212,  in  MGSS.,  XXV,  178.     "Decretum-. 
que  estin  ipso  concilio,  ut  imago  crucis  et  sanctorum  reliquie  spinis  circum- 
date  in  omni  prosternantur  ecclesia  tocius  diocesis,  organa  suspendantur, 
et  singulis  dominicis  festivisque  diebus  fiat  proclamatio  pro  predicto  scelere; 
insuper  in  ducem  et  omnes  suos  complices  prefata  sententia  sollempniter 
renovetur.     Est  igitur  primitus  in  maiori  ecclesia  imago  Crucifixi  deposita, 
et  sanctorum  Theodardi  et  Maldaberte  virginis  reliquie,  que  pariter  conti- 
nentur,  ad  eius  dextram  sunt  posite;  ad  sinistram  vero  Petri  et  Andoleti  et 

50 


THE  INTERDICT  IN  FORCE  5  r 

Canonical  burial  was  refused,  and  in  several  cases  the  punish- 
ment for  disregarding  this  prohibition  was  the  disinterment  of 
the  bodies.9  In  the  settlement  of  the  interdict  of  La  Charite", 
for  instance,  it  was  stipulated  that  twenty  bodies  should  be 
exhumed  in  each  cemetery,  and  should  be  exposed  while  one 
mass  for  the  dead,  begun  immediately  after  the  disinterment, 
was  celebrated;  and,  should  more  than  twenty  bodies  be  un- 
lawfully buried,  they  too  were  to  be  exhumed  unless  the  re- 
spective heirs  or  successors  made  satisfaction.10  These  terms 
were  fulfilled,  and  the  bodies  lay  exposed  while  a  general  ser- 
mon was  preached  to  the  people  in  the  church  of  St.  Peter  of 
La  Charite"  and  a  mass  for  the  dead  was  recited.  Then  the 
bodies  were  given  canonical  burial.11 

But  the  power  of  the  church  was  by  no  means  exhausted  in 
such  expedients  to  arouse  public  sentiment.  Various  admin- 
istrative measures,  punishment  of  the  clergy,  and  reward  for 
obedience  were  also  means  of  securing  observance  of  inter- 
dicts. Prelates  were  commanded  to  observe  the  sentence,12 
suburbs  and  outlying  buildings  were  included  in  interdicted 
cities  ,13  the  people  were  urged  to  listen  to  preaching 14  and 

sancti  Floriberti  episcopi  et  confessoris,  que  etiam  pariter  collocantur, 
relique  sunt  statute."  (b)  Hotsemius,  Hist.  Pont.  Leod.  ad  an.  1255,  in 
Chapeaville,  II,  287^  "  Hie  attende  quod  istis  temporibus  Canonici  con- 
tra Episcopum  et  quoscunque  injuratores  suos  organa  sua  suspendere  con- 
sueverunt;  spinis  et  urticis  Sanctorum  imagines  involvendo."  C.  2.  de 
Offic.  ordinar.,  VI,  i.  16.  "  Caeterum  detestabilem  abusum  horrendae 
indevotionis  illorum  qui  crucis,  Beatae  Mariae  Virginis,  alicrumque  Sancto- 
rum imagines  seu  statuas  irreverent!  ausu  tractantes,  eas  in  aggravationem 
cessationis  hujusmodi  prosternunt  in  terram  et  urticis  spinisque  supponunt 
.  .  .  prohibemus. " 

'Prov.  Cone.  Scoticanum,  c.  24,  in  Wilkins,  Cone.,  I,  610.  "  .  .  .  et 
quod  a  loco  sacro  extrahantur  corpora  sic  sepulta." 

10  fa)  Gall.  Christ.,  XII,  Instrumenta,  col.  173-174.     (b)  Hist.  Episc. 
Autiss.,  c.  64,  in  Labbe,  Nova  Bibl.,  I,  506. 

11  Prynne's  Records,  II,  App.   4-6.     Prynne's  Records  are  responsible 
for  the  unsupported  statement    that    before  the    interdicted  churches  of 
Faversham  were  reconciled  all  altars  were  broken  to  pieces,  palls  of  altars 
and  corporals  were  burned,  and  all  chalices  were  melted  that  had  been 
used  during  the  interdict. 

12  See  above,  chap.  II,  n.  151.       l8  See  above,  chap.  II,  n.  17. 
14  See  above,  chap.  II,  nn.  153,  154. 


52  THE  INTERDICT 

were  forbidden  to  leave  the  district  and  worship  in  other 
places,15  the  sentence  was  republished  on  Sundays  and  feast- 
days,  and  those  laymen  who  showed  particular  impudence  in 
refusing  to  observe  the  interdict  were  threatened  with  excom- 
munication.16 Entire  failure  to  observe  the  sentence  resulted 
in  an  aggravation — sometimes  in  the  form  of  threats  of  ex- 
communication,17 sometimes  in  the  extension  of  the  territorial 
bounds  of  the  interdict.18 

Punishment  for  non-observance  fell  most  heavily  on  the 
clergy,  for  without  their  connivance  the  interdict  could  be  but 
slightly  violated.  Laymen  were  punished  for  refusal  to  heed 
the  sentence  only  when  they  were  lords  or  authorities  and 
compelled  the  clergy  to  perform  rites,  in  which  case  they  fell 
under  a  form  of  excommunication  reserved  to  the  pope.  A 
council  of  1238,  for  instance,  declared  that  those  barons  who 
refused  for  a  year  to  observe  the  interdict  should  be  consid- 
ered heretics,  and  that  their  property  should  be  confiscated.19 
For  the  regular  clergy  there  were  only  two  forms  of  punish- 
ment for  non-observance  :  excommunication  if  so  facto  ;10  and 
removal  to  a  monastery  with  a  more  rigid  discipline,*1  unless  a 
regular  was  also  a  priest,  in  which  case  he  was  subject  to  sus- 
pension." For  the  secular  clergy  the  three  penalties  were 
suspension,  deprivation  of  benefices,  and  deposition.28  Sus- 

15  See  above,  chap.  I,  n.  40. 

18  Kober,  XXII,  371. 

1T  (a)  John  of  England,  excommunicated  in  1211.     (b)  J-L.,  11728. 

18  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XVI,   136  (Potth.,  4828).     After  John's  submission 
Innocent  wrote:    "...  mandamus  quatenus   nobis   inconsultis   in    cis- 
marinam  terram  ipsius  non  proferas  aliquo  modo  sententiam  interdict!. " 
Evidently  Innocent  had  designed  to  interdict  John's  continental  posses- 
sions, if  he  did  not  submit. 

19  Cone.  Campinac.,  1238,  c.  17,  in  Mansi,  XXIII,  491. 

30  (a)  C.  I    de  sent,  excom.  in  Clement.  5'.  10.     (b)  Annal.  S.  Edmundi, 
ad  an.  1208  (Liebermann,  p.  147).    The  Cistercians  were  excommunicated 
for  violating  the  interdict. 

31  (a)  C.  7.  X.  de  cleric,  excom.  minist.  5.  27.     (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  X, 
62  (Potth.,  3101). 

33  Matt.  Par.,  Hist.  Angl.  ad  an.  1208,  in  Rec.,  XVII,  689. 
M  Kober,  XXII,  37!. 


THE  INTERDICT  IN  FORCE  53 

pension  was  most  frequently  used,"  and  more  serious  offences 
brought  deprivation  of  benefices ; 26  a  particularly  grave  disobe- 
dience resulted  in  deposition.26  The  following  penalties  were 
imposed  at  various  times  upon  disobedient  clerks  :  certain 
seculars  lost  the  power  of  acquiring  benefices,27  others  lost 
their  right  of  burial,28  some  underwent  severe  penance  ,29  and 
still  others  lost  their  distributions  or  ornaments.80  In  one 
case  where  suspension  proved  ineffectual,  the  clerk  was  obliged 
to  make  a  pilgrimage  to  Rome  ,81  in  another  he  was  excommu- 
nicated." In  some  instances  the  pope  annulled  the  promo- 
tions of  those  who  had  disobeyed.33  Excommunicates  who 
persisted  in  celebrating  forbidden  services  were  detained  in 
monasteries,34  and  those  clerks  who  had  admitted  forbidden 
persons  to  church  services  were  compelled  to  have  services 
with  closed  doors  and  without  the  sound  of  bells  under  pain  of 

M(a)  Gesta,  c.  51  in  fin.  (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  Ill,  20,  43;  VI,  13. 
(c)  C.  Ult.  X.  He  excess,  praelat.  5.  31. 

There  follow  a  few  instances  of  suspension:  (d)  J-L.,  14316(9314). 
(e)  Gesta,  c.  57.  (f)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XV,  12  (Potth.,  4406).  (g) 
Matt.  Par.,  Hist.  Angl.  ad  an.  1208,  in  /fee.,  XVII,  689. 

35  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  X,  62  (Potth.,  3101).  (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI, 
97  (Potth.,  1934).  (c)  J-L.,  11840.'  (d)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  13 
(Potth.,  1846). 

16  (a)  Greg.  IX,  Encyclica  ad  univ.  praelat.,  1239,  in  Huillard-Breholles, 
Hist.,  V,  293.  (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  97  (Potth.,  1934).  (c)  J-L., 
14111  (9I7O. 

"  (a)  C.  i.  X.  de  postulat.  I.  5.     (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  Ill,  20. 

28  Cone.   Ravennat.,  1311,  c.   28,  in  Hard.,  VII,   I376f.     "...  qui- 
cumque  de  cetero  excom.  .    .    .  vel  interdicti  sententiam  animo  sustinuerit 
per  annum  indurato  ...  in  poenam  contumaciae  eccl.  careat  sepultura." 

29  J-L. ,  14111  (9171).      "  .  .  .  et  omnibus  poenitentiam  injungat  ..." 
80  Lebeuf,  Mem.  Diocese  d'Auxerre,  II,  69-71. 

51  (a)  Gesta,  c.  57.  (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  13  (Potth.,  1846).  (c) 
Rot.  Chart.,  I,  209. 

"J-L.,  11728. 

88  (a)  Gesta.  c.  54,  56,  57.  (b)  Inn.  Opp.,  IV,  col.  58  (Potth.,  969). 
(c)  C.  5.  X.  de  postulat.  i.  5.  (d)  Potth.,  1043. 

84  (a)  J-L.,  11840.  (b)  Prov.  Cone.  Trevir.,  1238,  c.  7,  in  Mansi, 
XXIII,  480.  "  Statuimus,  quod  si  clericus  celebraverit  in  loco  interdict©, 
vel  ipse  interdictus,  vel  excommunicatus  divina  celebrare  praesumpserit,  et 
ammonitus  a  praelato  suo  non  destiterit,  per  episcopum  loci  capiatur  arctae 
custodiae  et  poenitentiae  deputandus." 


54  THE  INTERDICT 

severer  penalty,  and  for  every  day  the  clerks  offended  they 
and  their  churches  suffered  a  week.86 

Just  as  refusal  to  observe  interdict  brought  punishment,  so 
rewards  were  offered  to  those  who  heeded  it.  Peter  of  Arras 
received  special  thanks  from  the  pope  for  his  ardent  support 
of  the  cause  of  the  church,36  and  other  French  bishops  were 
honored  with  laudatory  letters.37  The  "  religious"  of  Venice 
had  promises  of  "  graces,  honours,  and  dignities," 38  and  indul- 
gences were  published  for  all  who  would  observe  the  inter- 
dict.-''9 When  it  seemed  that  the  interdict  of  Sicily  (1717) 
would  fail,  the  pope  felt  constrained  to  issue  a  plenary  indul- 
gence to  all  who  would  obey  the  sentence.40 

From  Sarpi's  well-informed,  if  bitter,  account  of  the  struggle 
of  Paul  V  with  Venice  (1606)  can  be  gathered  an  idea  of  the 
numerous  devices  to  secure  the  effectiveness  of  the  interdict. 
Seeing  that  his  sentence  would  not  be  observed,  the  pope 
withdrew  his  nuncio  from  Venice ,  charging  him  to  leave  none 
of  his  company  behind.*1  The  Jesuits  in  departing  from  the 
city  proceeded  with  great  solemnity,  hoping  to  stir  up  a  tumult, 
in  which  they  were  disappointed.  The  Capuchins  had  in- 
tended to  do  the  same  thing;  but,  being  prevented,  "  they 
celebrated  that  morning  only  one  Masse  and  consumed  all  of 

MProv.  Cone.  Trevir.,  1238,  c.  4,  in  Mansi,  XXIII,  479-480. 

88  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  Ill,  25. 

"Sigeb.,  Contin.  Aquic.,  in  MGSS.,  VI,  436.  "  Hos  [that  is,  those 
obeying  the  interdict]  papa  Innocentius  miris  per  epistolas  illis  missas  effert 
laudibus,  contemptores  autem  verbis  terret  minacibus." 

88  Sarpi,  Historia  particolare.  The  quotation  is  from  the  quaint  c6n- 
temporary  English  version,  Quarrels  of  Paul  V,  103—104. 

99  Ibid.,  135-137. 

40 Clemens  XI,  Const.  "Ad  augendam",  1717,  in  Bullar.  Rom.,  VIII, 
185.  "...  qui  .  .  .  interdictum  cui  civitates  et  dioceses  praefatae  in 
praesens  jussu  nostro  suppositae  reperiuntur,  ea,  qua  par  est  obedientia 
mine  observant,  et  etiam  in  posterum,  quousque  illud  perduraverit  similiter 
observareperrexerint,  in  cujuslibet  eorum  mortis  articulo,  si  vere  poenitentes 
et  confess!,  ac  sacra  communione  refecti,  vel  quatenus  id  facere  nequiverint, 
saltern  contriti  Nomen  Jesu  ore,  si  potuerint,  sin  minus  corde  devote  invo- 
caverint,  plenariam  omnium  peccatorum  suorum  Indulgentiam  et  remis- 
sionem  misericorditer  in  Domino  concedimus." 

41  Sarpi,  Quarrels  of  Paul  V,  83-84. 


THE  INTERDICT  IN  FORCE  55 

the  holy  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  which  was  preserved  in 
their  Church,  and  concluded  the  Masse  without  giving  Bene- 
diction unto  the  people.  They  left  also  to  their  Devotes  divers 
instructions  for  to  observe  the  Interdict,  as  did  likewise  the  The- 
atines."  42  The  papal  court  tried  to  induce  all  "  religious  " 
either  to  abstain  from  services  or  to  withdraw  from  Venice. 
The  cardinals  and  superiors  of  the  orders  "  did  what  they  could 
with  them,  with  menaces  of  censures,  paines,  and  other  evils 
corporall  and  spirituall,  as  also  with  promises  of  graces,  hon- 
ours ,  and  dignities,  not  only  to  the  Chief e ,  but  further  to  each 
particular,  if  they  would  observe  the  interdict  or  retire  them- 
selves."43 By  promising  large  rewards  they  induced  agents  to 
cause  a  disturbance  in  Venice.  The  pope  even  proposed  to 
use  the  Inquisition  and  accuse  the  Doge  of  heresy.  He  also 
published  a  jubilee,  in  which  he  invited  all  Christians  to  join 
him  in  praying  for  the  necessities  of  the  church,  and  granted 
indulgences,  absolution,  and  remission  to  all  excepting  those 
found  in  places  interdicted,  "  not  comprehending  them  so 
much  as  in  their  number  whose  prayers  he  implored".  At 
that  time  a  jubilee  was  much  wished  for  by  the  people  of  Italy, 
and  the  pope  hoped  that  the  Venetians  would  insist  on  taking 
part  in  it.  The  banished  Jesuits  announced  to  their  Venetian 
adherents  that  they  had,  by  papal  dispensation,  power  to  grant, 
and  would  grant,  the  jubilee  "  to  such  persons  who  would 
observe  the  conditions  by  them  propounded,  among  which 
these  were  some  :  not  to  goe  to  Masse ,  not  to  approve  the 
publique  reasons  and  actions."44  The  Jesuits  also  tried  to 
get  their  adherents  to  come  to  the  confines  of  the  state,  that 
there  they  might  influence  them  ;  and  very  often  they  entered 
the  state  in  disguise  for  the  same  purpose.  They  published 
indulgences  in  favor  of  those  who  would  observe  the  interdict 
or  would  persuade  others  to  observe  it.  They  forged  letters 

42  Sarpi,  Quarrels  of  Paul  V,  97-98. 
48  Ibid.,  103-104. 
"Ibid.,  140-142. 


56  THE  INTERDICT 

in  the  name  of  Genoa  and  spread  them  in  Venice,  they  scat- 
tered polemical  writings,  they  labored  in  other  countries  that 
Venetian  ambassadors  should  receive  affronts,  they  tried  to 
induce  states  to  promise  that  they  would  not  let  Venice  levy 
men  among  them,  and  menaced  any  that  would  help  Venice. 
Ecclesiastics  in  Milan  tried  to  stir  up  the  people  by  declaring 
marriages  contracted  in  the  time  of  the  interdict  to  be  void. 
Pro-Venetian  writings  were  put  on  the  index,  and,  finally, 
attempts  were  made  to  embroil  Venice  in  war.46  These  vari- 
ous expedients  to  bring  the  city  to  submission,  though  in  this 
instance  futile,  are  suggestive  of  what  could  be  expected  to 
follow  a  refusal  to  observe  an  interdict. 

It  seems  proper  to  inquire  at  this  point  what  recognition  or 
value  was  accorded  to  ministrations  performed  during  an  inter- 
dict. That  the  question  arose  in  the  minds  of  those  inter- 
dicted, and  that  it  was  raised  by  the  clergy,  not,  however, 
without  the  motives  extending  beyond  the  mere  question  of 
the  validity  of  forbidden  ministrations,  appears  from  the  ac- 
count of  the  Venetian  interdict.  In  departing  the  Jesuits  left 
instructions  concerning  the  interdict,  and  the  Theatines  did 
likewise,  "but  in  such  a  confusion  and  in  so  great  haste, being 
not  able  to  consult  together,  they  did  not  well  accord  with  the 
Jesuites,  as  also  the  Jesuites  disagreed  amongst  themselves; 
whence  it  came  to  passe  that  their  adherents  proceeded  di- 
versly,  some  being  of  opinion  that  all  the  Sacraments  admin- 
tered  by  the  Priests  that  stayed  were  nullities,  and  therefore 
that  it  was  not  lawfull  to  adore  the  holy  Eucharist,  as  before  : 
Others  esteemed  that  to  heare  Masse  was  only  a  veniall  sinne, 
and  others  held  it  a  sin  most  grievous,  although  the  Sacra- 
ment were  truly  celebrated."46  Disagreements  of  this  charac- 
ter were  either  surprisingly  few,  or  they  did  not  find  their  way 
into  available  accounts.  To  question  the  validity  of  services 
which,  once  performed,  were  over  and  left  no  tangible  effects, 

*6Sarpi,  Quarrels  of  Paul  F,  135-137,  189,  197-198,  200. 
46 Ibid.,  98. 


THE  INTERDICT  IN  FORCE  57 

was  futile,  for  they  could  not  be  revoked.  This  is  probably 
the  reason  why  any  question  that  arose  had  to  do  with  the 
validity  of  acts  which  had  tangible  effects  and  could  be  re- 
voked, such  as  marriage  or  burial.  It  has  already  been  stated 
that  ordinarily  marriage  was  not  prohibited.  Bracton,  how- 
ever, relates  that  the  legality  of  a  marriage  was  questioned 
because  it  occurred  in  time  of  interdict ;  *7  and  during  the  in- 
terdict on  Venice  there  were  ecclesiastics  who  considered  mar- 
riages contracted  in  the  city  void.*8  Questions  of  this  sort 
may  be  expected  to  arise  over  any  matter  open  to  some  doubt ; 
but  they  do  not,  in  the  face  of  authority  to  the  contrary,  dis- 
prove the  legality  of  marriages  contracted  during  interdict.49 
That  the  validity  of  burial  was  not  questioned,  though  in  a  few 
instances  the  dead  were  exhumed,  is  proved  by  the  fact  that 
some  bodies  buried  during  the  interdict  of  La  Charit£  were  al- 
lowed to  remain  on  condition  that  satisfaction  was  made  by 
the  heirs.50  Canonists  are  quite  agreed  that  bodies  buried 
during  interdict  may  remain  after  relaxation.61  To  be  sure, 
bodies  of  persons  excommunicated  or  interdicted  nominatim 
had  to  be  exhumed,  but  such  burials  would  have  been  illegal 
had  there  been  no  interdict  and  are  no  exception  to  the  rule 
just  given.52  Those,  however,  who  had  performed  inhibited 
burial  were  excommunicated.53  These  facts  bring  one  to  the 
conclusion  that  ministrations  performed  in  contravention  of 
interdict  possessed  their  usual  efficacy,  though  whoever  was 

47  Bracton,  De  Legibus,  lib.  V,  Tract.  V,  c.  19,  sec.  11  (R.  Ser.),  VI, 
313.  In  the  interdict  of  England  (1208)  marriage  was  prohibited,  which 
may  be  the  reason  why  the  marriage  was  questioned  in  this  case. 

48Sarpi,  Quarrels  of  Paul  V,  197-198. 

49  (a)  Andreae,  Tract.  Utilix.,  Decimus  Quartus:  ".  .  .quod  si 
laici  contrahunt  matrimonium,  tenet  matrimonium."  (b)  See  above,  p. 
i6ff. 

60  This  means,  no  doubt,  that  the  heirs  paid  the  burial  fees,  which  would 
in  the  natural  course  of  events  have  come  to  the  priests.  See  above,  n.  10. 

51  (a)  Kober,  XXI,  337!.  (b)  Andreae,  Tract.  Utiliss.,  sec.  27.  (c) 
Cone.  Prov.  Scoticanum,  1255,  c.  24,  in  Wilkins,  Cone.,  I,  610. 

"Andreae,  Tract.  Utiliss.,  sec.  28. 

M  Kober,  XXI,  337!. 


58  THE  INTERDICT 

guilty  of  the  violation  fell  under  such  penalties  as  the  church 
affixed. 

It  now  remains  to  consider  the  actual  effects  of  interdicts. 
This  point  might  be  briefly  dismissed  with  the  sweeping  gen- 
eralization that  often  interdicts  produced  the  contemplated 
effects.  The  sources  bring  sufficient  evidence  that  sacraments, 
ministrations,  and  burial  ceased  now  and  then  in  consequence 
of  interdict.  Marriages,  as  says  a  modern  historian,  were 
solemnized  at  graves  instead  of  altars.54  This  statement  is  in 
general  sustained  by  the  report  from  the  Annals  of  Dunstable 
that  marriages  and  the  churching  of  women  took  place  at  the 
church  door.55  More  positive  evidence  that  marriages  occurred 
in  time  of  interdict  comes  from  an  agreement  of  the  Bishops 
of  Orleans  and  Auxerre  with  Philip  Augustus,  in  which  they 
promise  that  they  will  not  draw  into  question  any  marriage 
contracted  according  to  the  form  and  the  approved  custom  of 
the  church,  unless  there  would  have  been  cause  to  question 
the  marriage  had  there  been  no  interdict  on  their  dioceses.86 
This  agreement,  though  it  shows  positively  that  men  married 
during  interdict,  gives  reason  to  say  that  the  validity  of  that 
matrimony  was  questioned.  There  was  manifestly  a  sentiment 
that  all  was  not  right  with  marriage  in  interdicted  districts,  for 
Hoveden  relates  that  the  marriage  of  Louis,  son  of  Philip 
Augustus,  to  Blanche  of  Castile,  took  place  in  Normandy  be- 
cause of  the  interdict  in  France  ; 57  and  from  another  source  it 
appears  that  the  Count  of  Ponthieu  withdrew  to  Rouen  with 
the  young  sister  of  Philip  Augustus  to  receive  the  nuptial  bene- 
diction.58 Such  is  the  clear  and  unambiguous  evidence  re- 
garding marriages.  Other  sources  furnish  only  inferential  evi- 
dence :  in  April,  1208,  one  month  after  the  laying  of  the 

5*Hurter,  I,  376,  n.  152. 

55Chron.  Dunstapl.,  ad  an.  1208  (R.  Ser.\  III,  30. 

66  (a)  That  is,  any  marriage  contracted  after  the  relaxation  by  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Sens,     (b)  Lebeuf,  Mem.  Dioc.  d' Auxerre,  IV,  Preuves,  No. 
"3- 

67  Hoveden,  Chron.  ad  an.  1200  (R.  Ser.},  IV,  137-138. 
68 Bibl.  de  ?£cole  des  Chartes,  XXXIII,  599. 


THE  INTERDICT  IN  FORCE  5g 

interdict  on  England,  John  gave  his  assent  to  the  marriage  of 
Richard  Furmi  to  a  certain  Matilda,  and  ordered  the  marriage 
to  be  performed  if  she  desired  ; 59  whether  she  was  so  disposed, 
and  whether  the  marriage  occurred,  does  not  appear.  But, 
whether  it  did  or  not,  the  point  of  importance  is  that  it  was 
ordered  performed  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  interdict  then 
existing  forbade  marriage.60  From  that  time  on  to  January 
24,  1214,  neither  Close,  Patent,  nor  Charter  Rolls  give  good 
cause  even  to  infer  a  marriage.  This,  in  view  of  the  papal 
sentence  forbidding  marriage,  is  significant;  and  it  assumes 
real  importance  when  it  is  discovered  that  within  a  year  after 
the  submission  of  John  to  the  Pope  the  Rolls  mention  at  least 
six  marriages  which  are  permitted  or  for  which  arrangements 
are  made.61 

More  definite  evidence  has  been  preserved  relating  to  burial. 
In  one  account  of  the  results  of  the  interdict  it  is  stated  that 
Leopold  of  Austria  remained  unburied,  and  that  Raymond  VI 

59  Rot.  Claus.,  I,  1 10. 

60  Inn.,  Opp.,  IV,  col.  190,  No.  136. 

61  (a)  Rot.  Claus.,  I,  162.     This  permission  was  given  after  submission, 
but  before  the  relaxation  of  the  interdict.     About  January  24,  1214.     (b) 
Rot.    Claus.,  I,   162,  about  January  28,    1214,   and  Rot.  Pat.,   I,    109, 
January  26  28,  1214.     King  John  serves  notice  that  he  has  given  Isabella, 
Countess  of  Gloucester,  as  wife  to  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville.     In  February 
of  the  same  year  Geoffrey  had  failed  to  fulfil  the  conditions   (Rot.  C/aus., 
I,   163,  about  February  8,  1214).     Hence  the  marriage  probably  did  not 
occur.     However,  by  August  some  agreement  seems  to  have  been  reached 
and  John  again  serves  notice  of  giving  Isabella  to  Geoffrey  (Rot.  Ctaus., 
I,  209,  August  9,  1214).     This  delay  was  evidently  not  due  to  the  inter- 
dict,    (c)  Rot.  Clatis.,  I,   163.     The  king  permits  the  heir  of  Theobald 
Walter  to  marry  about  February  8,  1214.     This  permission  also  was  given 
before  relaxation,     (d)  Rot.    Claus.,  I,   168.     The  king    assents  to  the 
marriage  of  Robert  to  a  certain  widow,  July  10,  1214.     This  is  after  the 
relaxation  of  the  interdict,     (e)  Rot.  Claus.,  I,   190.     Marriage  of  Mar- 
garet, daughter  of  William  of  Warwick,  is  allowed,  if  she  is  so  inclined, 
March  15,  1215.     (f)  Rot.  Chart.,  I,   197-198,  March,  1214.     Marriage 
is  arranged  for.     The  point  of  importance  is,  that  permission  to  marry  was 
given  after  John's  submission,  though  none  was  given  in  the  preceding 
years  of  the  interdict.     This  is  certainly  not  due  to  any  regard  of  John  for 
the  interdict,  but  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  fact  that  as  long  as  John  and 
the  pope  disagreed  no  one  sought  permission  to  marry;   as  soon,  however, 
as  John  became  the  vassal  of  the  pope,  permission  was  sought  in  anticipa- 
tion of  the  relaxation  of  the  interdict. 


60  THE  INTERDICT 

of  Toulouse  lay  unburied  until  he  was  eaten  by  rats.62  Those 
cases  were,  however,  not  the  result  of  interdict  but  of  excom- 
munication. Though  these  instances  do  not  bear  upon  the 
matter  of  buria]  in  time  of  interdict,  they  are  excellent  exam- 
ples of  that  type  of  production  the  author  of  which  has  been 
impressed  with  the  dramatic  or  "  fulminating  "  qualities  of  the 
interdict  and  has  endeavored  at  the  cost  of  any  violence  to 
sources  and  any  distortion  of  facts  to  produce  a  highly  read- 
able story.  Probably  historians  less  remote  from  the  time 
of  which  they  wrote  had  similar  propensities;  but  they,  at 
least,  lived  when  they  could  know  from  personal  experience 
the  truth  of  what  they  wrote ,  and  in  so  far  they  are  more  cred- 
ible than  their  modern  competitors.  Granting  that  the  very 
gruesomeness  of  unburied  bodies  may  have  caused  the  chroni- 
clers to  exaggerate,  their  accounts  are  here  set  down  for  what 
they  are  worth.  It  is  related  that  during  the  interdict  on 
France  (1200)  bodies  were  not  bestowed  in  cemeteries,  and 
that  some  even  lay  unburied.63  In  Normandy  corpses  lay  on 
the  streets  and  caused  great  stench  among  the  living.64  In 
Bremen  the  corruption  of  bodies  which  lay  unburied  in  the 
cemeteries  offended  men  so  much  that  the  sentence  was  tem- 
pered.65 In  England  (1208)  the  dead  were  carried  out  of 
cities  and  interred,  like  dogs,  in  by-ways  and  ditches,  without 
prayers  and  the  ministrations  of  priests ;  clerks  and  even 
bishops  lay  unburied  outside  of  cemeteries.66  Why  bodies  lay 

"Hurter,  I,  376,  n.  158. 

68  (a)  Gesta,  c.  52.  (b)  Hoveden,  Chron.  ad  an.  1200  (R.  Ser.},  IV, 
137-138. 

MRog.  Wend.,  Flor.  Hist,  ad  an.  1197  (X.  Ser.),  I,  266. 

66  Arnoldus,  Chron.  Slav.,  lib.  V,  c.  22,  in  MGSS.,  XXI,  199.  "Cum 
igitur  civitas  Bremensis  hac  pestilentia  diutius  laboraret  et  corruptio 
cadaverum  que  inhumata  in  cimiteriis  jacebant  homines  plurimum  lederet, 
temperata  est  sententia." 

66  (a)  Matt.  Par.,  Chron.  maj.  ad  an.  1208  (7?.  Ser.)t  II,  521.  (b)  Gesta, 
c.  131.  "  .  .  .  regularium  sed  etiam  episcoporum  cadavera  servarerentur 
extra  cimiterium  inhumata."  (c)  Chron.  B.  Iterii,  ad  an.  1210,  in  Duples- 
Agier,  Chron.  dc  S.  Martial  de  Limoges  >  76.  "  .  .  .  audivimus  rumores 
.  .  .  quod  .  .  .  episcopi  defuncti  inhumati  jacerent."  (d)  Le  Neve, 
Fastit  III,  284.  Philip  of  Poitiers  unburied. 


THE  INTERDICT  IN  FORCE  6 1 

unburied  is  to  be  inferred  from  a  bull  of  the  Bishop  of  London , 
recently  found  in  St.  Bartholomew's  Hospital.67  Because  of 
the  interdict  the  dead  could  not  be  buried  in  the  regular  ceme- 
teries ;  and  the  city,  as  was  to  be  expected,  had  no  burial 
sites  for  such  an  occasion,  and  was  in  dire  need  of  a  place  in 
which  it  could  temporarily  bestow  its  dead.  London  authori- 
ties, finding  that  the  dead  lay  unburied,  finally  helped  them- 
selves out  of  their  difficulty  by  asking  the  officials  of  St.  Bar- 
tholomew for  the  temporary  use  of  an  area  lying  east  of  the  hos- 
pital. The  prior  and  the  canons,  the  procurator  and  the  breth- 
ren, seeing  the  obvious  need  of  the  city,  agreed  to  this  request, 
and  the  transfer  of  the  area  was  made  by  the  authority  of 

67  "  \Yillelmus  Dei  gracia  Londinensis  episcopus  omnibus  sancte  matris 
ecclesie  filiis  per  episcopatum  Londinensem  constitutis  salutem  in  auctore 
salutis  eternae.  Cum  nuper  apostolica  jussione  per  totam  Angliam  fuisset 
generalis  interdict!  sentencia  promulgata  adeo  quidem  ut  nusquam  liceret 
defunctorum  corpora,  sicut  mos  erat,  Christiane  tradere  sepulture,  viri 
nobiles  et  dilecti  in  Christo  filii  H[enricus]  maior  et  cives  Londoniarum  a 
dilectis  filiis  priore  et  canonicis  Sancti  Bartholomei  necnon  a  procuratore  ac 
fratribus  hospitalis  eorundem  postularent  ut  eis  aream  quandam  hospitali 
Sancti  Bartholomei  ex  oriental!  parte  adjacentem  ad  publicam  mortuorum 
suorum  sepulturam  indulgerent.  Quorum  piam  peticionem  attendentes, 
memorati  tam  canonici  quam  fratres,  simulque  urgentem  tocius  urbis  neces- 
sitatem  considerantes,  postulacionibus  eorumdem  consensum  adhibuere  feli- 
cem  et  benignum.  Verum  ne  sub  pretextu  pietatis  istius  oriri  possit  im- 
pietatis  occasio  sano  quidem  et  salubri  consilio  provisum  est  in  communi  ut 
area  memorata,  mortuis  deferendis  secundum  que  cives  disposuerunt  depu- 
tanda,  circumquaque  claudatur  arcto  aditu  ad  usum  sepulture  civibus  reser- 
vando.  Cautum  est  eciam  diligenter  ut  nulli  liceat  corpora  defunctorum 
quos  in  hospitali  predicto  mori  contigerit  in  eadem  area  sepelire.  Omnes 
enim  ejusdem  hospitalis  tam  fratres  quam  pauperes  aliunde  venientes  du- 
rante  interdicto,  sicut  et  ante  fieri  consuevit  secundum  arbitrium  canoni- 
corum  in  loco  competenti  ab  eis  canonicis  providendo  sepelientur.  Sane 
quam  cito,  gracia  divina  largiente,  sacrosanctam  ecclesiam  pristina  tran- 
quillitate  ac  libera  sacramentorum  suorum  observancia  gaudere  contigerit, 
locus  sepedictus  ad  jus  et  possessionem  fratrum  hospitalis  libere  revertetur. 
Dum  tamen  nulli  omnino  homini  liceat  ulterins  in  eadem  area  defunctum 
aliquem  sepelire.  Hec  autem  que  scripta  sunt  ut  futuris  temporibus 
inter  memoratos  canonicos  et  fratres  hospitalis  pax  inconcussa  servetur 
sigilli  nostri  testimonio  curavimus  communire.  Hiis  testibus  .  .  ."  The 
bull  is  not  dated,  but  the  witnesses'  names  put  it  beyond  doubt  that  the 
document  relates  to  the  great  interdict  of  England  under  John.  A  tran- 
script of  this  bull  was  found  in  the  cartulary  of  St.  Bartholomew's  Hos 
pital,  London,  and  it  was  printed  for  the  first  time  in  St.  Bartholomew's 
Hospital  Journal  (August,  1905),  Vol.  XII,  No.  II. 


62  THE  INTERDICT 

Bishop  William  of  London.68  This  bull  gave  the  city  permission 
to  enclose  the  area,  and  ordered  that  all  deceased  citizens, 
except  members  or  residents  of  the  hospital,  must  be  buried 
within  this  lot.  These  arrangements  were  possibly  sanitary 
regulations  to  insure  the  public  against  epidemics  by  giving  the 
city  officials  control  of  burials  ;  perhaps,  too,  the  city  collected 
a  burial  fee  and  to  prevent  evasion  of  this  fee  ordered  all  dead 
to  be  buried  in  the  authorized  place.  The  dead  of  the  hospi- 
tal, however,  were  not  to  be  buried  in  the  lot;  for  them  the 
hospital  must  provide  a  place.69  The  ground  was  ceded  to  the 
city  for  the  term  of  the  interdict  only,  and  was  to  revert  to  the 
hospital  immediately  after  the  reconciliation  of  church  and 
state.  The  eagerness  to  secure  canonical  burial  is  shown  by 
a  subterfuge  resorted  to  in  the  county  of  Vendome.  Bishop 
Ivo  of  Chartres  in  laying  the  interdict  had  exempted  paupers 
from  the  order  prohibiting  burial ;  Abbot  Geoffrey  criticized 
the  exemption,  and  added  that  in  consequence  of  the  favor 
shown  the  poor  no  one  lacked  canonical  burial,  since  all  called 
themselves  paupers.70 

Lesser  ecclesiastical  functions  were  also  affected  by  the  in- 
terdict. During  an  interdict  on  the  cathedral  of  Auxerre,  the 
anniversary  celebration  of  the  dedication  of  the  church  was 
postponed  because  of  the  silence  of  the  church.  The  chap- 
ter, which  was  responsible  for  the  interdict,  forbade  all  canons 
or  "  tortiers  "  to  dine  with  the  bishop,  except  at  times  custom- 
ary and  necessary  to  preserve  rights ,  on  pain  of  being  consid- 
ered perjured  and  of  losing  a  month's  distributions.  It  was 

68  The  bull  was  probably  issued  soon  after  the  beginning  of  the  interdict, 
or  between  July   14  and  September   29,   1208,  for  which  period  Bishop 
William,  who  had  been  banished  by  John  almost  immediately  after  the 
interdict  was  proclaimed,  had  a  safe-conduct  and  came  to  England.     He 
was  also  in  England  in   1209.     Perhaps  the  bull  was  issued  abroad,  but 
the  list  of  witnesses  makes  this  seem  improbable. 

69  The  brethren  of  the  hospital  possessed  a  privilege  from  Lucius  III, 
December  18,  1183,  granting  them  and  their  household  burial  during  in- 
terdict, but  this  was  useless  in  view  of  Innocent's  order  that  no  privilege 
should  stand. 

70Goffridus  Vindocin.,  Epp.,  II,  16,  in  Migne,  Pat.  Lat.>  157,  col.  83. 


THE  INTERDICT  IN  FORCE  63 

also  ordered  that  a  chair  in  the  chapter-house  should  no  longer 
be  prepared  for  the  bishop ;  and  that  whoever  assisted  when 
the  bishop  officiated  should,  if  an  intern,  lose  his  distributions, 
and,  if  an  extern,  be  refused  the  ornaments  of  the  church.71 
Visitation  of  churches,  however,  was  continued  by  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Reims,  though  all  the  churches  of  Reims  were  under 
interdict.72  He  was  at  one  time  during  the  interdict  requested 
to  lay  the  corner-stone  of  a  church ; 73  and ,  though  there  is  no 
evidence  that  he  complied,  the  very  request  argues  that  such  a 
ceremony  was  allowed,  an  opinion  which  is  supported  by  the 
fact  that  church-building  and  repairing  were  not  prohibited  by 
the  interdict.74  Instruction  of  scholars  was  permitted  during 
the  English  interdict;75  but  the  election  of  scholars  to  clerics, 
during  an  Italian  interdict,  was  canceled  by  the  Roman  pon- 
tiff.76 Evidences  of  gifts  to  churches  are  found  everywhere  in 
the  Rolls." 

That  the  cessation  of  so  many  ecclesiastical  services  and 
ministrations  caused  a  burden  for  some  one  is  obvious.  Upon 
whom  this  burden  fell  is  a  matter  of  no  little  importance. 
Did  the  person  or  group  of  persons  responsible  for  the  sen- 
tence actually  bear  the  brunt,  or  did  the  weight  of  it  all  fall 
upon  the  people  in  general  or  upon  the  church  and  the  clergy? 
Since  the  interdict  was  generally  used  to  bring  some  offender 
to  terms,  one  would  naturally  suppose  that  the  offender  bore 
the  brunt  of  the  sentence.  Even  if  the  offender  directly  suf- 
fered no  more  than  those  around  him,  indirectly  he  was  the 
principal  sufferer,  for  it  was  the  expressed  design  of  the  inter- 

"Lebeuf,  Mint.  Dioc.  d'Auxerre,  II,  69-71. 

72  The  interdict  probably  affected  only  the  city;  whereas  the  visitation  of 
the  archbishop  may  have  been  to  churches  outside  of  the  city. 

73  Marlot,  Hist,  de  Reims,  III,  573^ 

74  AW.  Pat.,  I,  90,  March  25  and  30,  1209.     The  repairing  and  build- 
ing of  churches  are  implied  in  these  letters. 

75  Inn.,  Opp.,  IV,  col.  190,  No.  136. 

78  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  II,  241  (Potth.,  897). 

77  (a)  Davidsohn,  Philip  II  und  Ingeborg,  108.  (b)  Rot.  Pat.  and  Rot. 
Claus.,  passim. 


64  THE  INTERDICT 

diet  to  manufacture  a  public  sentiment  which  should  operate 
against  the  delinquent  in  such  a  way  as  to  bring  him  into  sub- 
mission.''8 Public  sentiment  depended  to  a  considerable  de- 
gree upon  the  justice  of  the  sentence,  on  the  popularity  of  the 
judge  with  his  inferiors,  but  especially  on  the  attachment  of 
the  people  to  the  church.  To  a  mediaeval  populace,  fully  im- 
bued with  the  teachings  of  the  church,  the  sacraments  and 
offices  of  the  church  were  necessities  of  life  in  time  present 
and  eternal ; 79  and  a  deprivation  of  those  necessities  was  to  all 
the  faithful  a  grievous  calamity.  The  more  sincerely  the  peo- 
ple were  attached  to  the  church  and  her  teachings,  the  more 
did  they  miss  the  forbidden  offices,  and  the  more  probable  was 
it  that  they  would  heed  the  sentence  and  by  their  unrest  force 
the  offender  to  terms.80  If  public  sentiment,  no  matter  from 
what  source  it  arose,  was  powerful  enough  to  bring  the  offen- 
der to  submission,  the  interdict  was  effective.  But  usually 
interdicted  offenders  were  at  the  same  time  under  pressure  of 
a  political  or  military  character,  and  an  interdict  thus  interwo- 
ven with  politics  was  itself  practically  a  political  measure.  In 
the  case  of  King  John ,  political  conditions  were  such  as  to  make 
an  estimate  of  the  power  of  the  interdict  almost  impossible. 
In  hardly  any  case  of  submission  can  one  determine  the  power 
of  the  interdict ;  one  can,  at  best,  say  that  the  sentence  played 
an  important  and  possibly  decisive  part  by  putting  in  a  sacri- 
legious light  all  the  acts  of  the  person  under  interdict,  and  in 

78  Goffridus  Vindocin.,  Epp.,  II,  16,  in  Migne,  Pat.  Lai.,  157,  col.  84. 
"  .    .      ut  universa  plebs,  quae  nostram   iniuriam  et  ejus  malitiam  non 
ignorat  et  cui  illius  iniquitas  multum  displicet  nee  maior  iustitia  displiceret, 
hinc   occasione  accepta   proclamaret  in  eum,  et  sic  quoniam  Dei  aniore 
iniusta   actione   spontaneus  non   vult  desistere,   clamore  simul  et   timore 
hominum  desisteret  vel  invitus." 

79  How  necessary  the  ministrations  of  the  church  seemed  to  a  mediaeval 
populace  may  be  seen  from  the  fact,  alleged  by  Pope  Clement  V  as  known 
to  him  through  frequent  complaints  by  prelates  and  from  his  own  experi- 
ence in  earlier  years,  that  in  time  of  interdict  many  clerics  were  induced, 
openly  or  privily,  to  make  holes,  and  even  windows,  in  their  church  doors 
to  enable  excluded  persons  to  participate  in  the  services  "behind  closed 
doors".     C.  I.  de  sent,  excom.  in  Clement.  5.  10. 

80  La  Ctede,  Hist,  de  Portugal,  II,  I56f. 


THE  INTERDICT  IN  FORCE  65 

this  way  alienating  any  support  that  might  have  accrued  from 
an  otherwise  favorable  public  opinion.  Yet,  difficult  as  it  is  to 
estimate  the  exact  effects,  there  are  instances  in  which  it  is 
clear  that  the  interdict  had  considerable  power ;  notable  ex- 
amples are  the  interdicts  of  Florence,81  Auxerre,  and  France.82 
Indeed,  the  interdict  was  not  lightly  invited  by  any  one. 
Princes  wavered83  even  at  the  threat,  prayed  to  have  the  sen- 
tence of  the  interdict  removed,  and,  if  they  opposed  it  at  all, 
did  so  by  most  vigorous  measures.84  Many  an  unruly  person 
yielded  under  the  cessation  of  religious  ministrations.85 

Whatever  power  the  interdict  exerted  on  the  offender,  he 
was  not  the  only  one  to  suffer  from  it.  The  very  hope  of 
church  authorities  that  the  interdict  would  cause  the  public  to 
rise  against  the  offender  makes  it  evident  that  the  district  in- 
terdicted also  experienced  the  pressure  of  discipline.  Did  this 
pressure  fall  upon  the  commercial,  political,  and  legal  institu- 
tions of  a  community  or  upon  the  inhabitants  themselves? 
Excepting  in  Florence,  Venice,  and  several  lesser  cities,  trade 
went  on  during  the  interdict  much  as  before,  so  far  as  can  be 

81  Lea,  Inquisition^  II,  278-281. 

82  See  Appendix,  cases  57  and  88. 

83  (a)   Mat.    Hist.    Becket   (R.    Ser.\   VII,  474!.      Cf.  Diceto,   Imag. 
Hist.  (R.  Ser.),  I,  346.     When  it  appeared  that  the  interdict  of  England 
(1171)  could  not  be  prevented  otherwise,  the  king's  agents  promised  on 
oath  that  their  sovereign  would  obey,  and  thus  averted  the  interdict,     (b) 
Mat.  Hist.  Becket  (R.  Ser.},  VI,  172.     "Timebat  enim  rex       .       excom- 
municari,  universamque  terram  suaminterdici      .    .  ."     (c)  Gerv.  Canterb., 
Opp  Hist.  (R.  Ser.),  I,  234.     Henry,  in  his  fear,  ordered  the  ports  guarded 
so  that  letters  could  not  enter  the  realm,     (d)  d'Achery,  SpiciL,  III,  610. 
King  Andrew  of  Hungary  showed  the  greatest  sorrow  on  being  interdicted. 

84  (a)   Mat.  Hist.  Becket  (R.  Ser.],  IV,  166.     Henry  II  tried  to  bribe 
the  Curia  not  to  lay  the  interdict,     (b)   Philip  Augustus  also  tried  to  buy 
the    Curia.     See    Appendix,    case    57,    France.       (c)    John    of    England 
stopped  at  nothing  in  his  efforts  to  defeat  the  pope. 

85  (a)  Gesta  Hen.  II  (R.  Ser.},  I,  8.     "Arctatus  ergo  rex  Anglorum 
severitate  canonica  tandem  adquievit  .  ."     (b)  Gesta,  c.   58.     Leon 
and  Portugal  were  interdicted  because  of  incestuous  marriages.     "  Unde 
quod  illegitime  factum  fuerat  est  penitus  revocatum."     (c)   King  Richard 
and  Philip  Augustus  were  threatened  with  interdict  and  consequently  made 
a  truce.     See  Appendix,  case   13.     (d)  The  Archbishop  of  Salerno  was 
released  at  threat  of  interdict,      (e)  Citizens  of  Oxford  were  brought  to 
submission  by  interdict.     See  Appendix,  case  81, 


66  THE  INTERDICT 

gathered  from  accounts.86  Governments  continued  in  their 
regular  courses  :  taxes  were  levied,87  payments  were  made  to 
and  by  the  treasury,88  the  chancellery  issued  letters  attested  as 
before,89  councils  met,90  wars  were  waged,91  and  crusades  were 
urged.92  Legal  functions  also  continued  :  grants  of  land  and 
other  properties  were  made,98  real  estate  was  transferred,94  liti- 
gation continued,95  oaths  were  taken,96  testaments  were  con- 

86  (a)  Lea,  Inqttisition,  II,  278,  281.     (b)  Ibid.,  Ill,   195.     Venice, 
1309.     (c)  Pflugk-Httg.,  Iter  Italicum,  516.     (d)  Inn.   Ill,  Epp.,  XI, 
143  (Potth.,  3501).      (e)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,   102  (Potth.,  1947).     (f) 
Hontheim,  Hist.    Trevir.,   I,   Urk.,  491.     Cited    from  Raumer,    Gesch. 
Hohenst.,  VI,   161.     (g)    Gall.    Christ.,    X,  ii,  61.     If   the   people    do 
not  yield  "  faciatis  redditus  ac  debita  et  alia  bona  ipsorum  in  nundinis 
ubicumque  reperta  fuerint  .    .    .  detineri."     Called  excommunication. 

87  Rigord,  De  Gest.  Ph.  Aug.  ad  an.  1199, in  Kec">  XVII,  51.     "... 
tertiam  pattern  omnium  bonorum  suorum  eis  violenter  abstulit.     A  burgen- 
sibus  suis  intolerabiles  tallias  et  exactiones  inauditas  extorsit. " 

88  (a)  Rot.  Claus.,  I,  116,  May  16,  1212.     (b;  The  pipe  rolls  give  no 
evidence  of  decreased  business  during  the  years  of  the  interdict. 

89  (a)  Rot.  Claus.  and  Rot.  Pat,  1208-1214,  passim.     In  England  let- 
ters were  attested  by  the  Bishop  of  Winchester,  Rot.  Claus.,  I,  no,  in, 
116,  117,  etc.,  etc.;  by  the  Archdeacon  of  Huntingdon,  ibid.,  116,  117,  etc. 
(b)  Bibl.  Nat.,  MSS.,  Coll.  Moreau,  vol.  100,  pp.  178-197.     Cited  from 
Davidsohn,  Philip  II  und  fngeborg,  107.     The  Bishop  of  Paris  attested  a 
sale  during  the  French  interdict. 

90  Quell.  Gesch.   Stadt  K'oln,  VI,  7.     The  Council  of  Cologne  was  al- 
lowed to  celebrate  mass  in  time  of  interdict  at  its  council  sessions. 

91  Wars  suffered  somewhat  from  the  unwillingness  of  men  under  inter- 
dict to  enter  battle.     Thus,  in  Leon,  the  Christians  hesitated  to  enter  battle 
against   Saracens,  Gesta,  c.   58.     And   the    English  soldiers  hesitated  to 
march  under  the  leadership  of  John  against  the  pious  William  of  Scotland, 
Gerv.  Canterb.  (R.  Ser.),  II,  102-103. 

92  Gesta,  c.  84.     During  the  interdict  of  France,  Innocent  sent  letters  to 
France  urging  a  crusade. 

93  (a)  Rot.  Claus.,  I,  118,  119,  120,  121,  122,  126.     (b)  Rot.  Chart., 
I,  187,  1 88,  189,  190,  191.     (c)  Rot.  Pat.,  I,  82. 

94  (a)  See  above,  n.  87.      (b)  Cartul.  de  S.  Euverte  d'Orleans,  Bibl.  Nat. , 
MS.   Lat.    10,089,  P-  l%9-     Cited  from  Davidsohn,  Philip  II  und  Inge- 
borg,  107.     The  monastery  of  S.  Euverte  d'Orleans  purchased  a  house,  July 
15,  1200. 

95  (a)  Placit.   Abbreviatio,  p.    67,  col.  I   (1210).      "  Elias  .    .    .  captus 
pro  contumacia  sua  eo  quod  contemsit  uxorem  suam  venit  et  dixit  se  velle 
stare  considerationem  sancte  ecclesie  et  inde  invenit  plegios."     (b)  Rot. 
Claus.,  I,  149,  September  9,  1213.     King  John  determines  the  validity  of 
an  advowson. 

96  (a)  Rot.  Pat.,  I,  97,  98b,  loob,  106.      (b)  Rot.   Claus.,  I,  59,  Janu- 
ary 3,  1213.     "  .    .    .  per  sacramentum  xii  liberorum  et  legalium  homi- 
num. " 


THE  INTERDICT  IN  FORCE  67 

firmed,97  and  so  on  through  a  long  list  of  legal  activities.98 
But  the  residents  of  a  district  experienced  no  little  material 
discomfort  from  the  interdict.  The  joy  with  which  they  hailed 
the  removal  of  a  sentence  indicates  the  sorrow  they  felt  during 
its  operation."  Princes  in  time  of  interdict  took  occasion  to 
oppress  their  subjects  with  burdensome  taxes,100  lawlessness 
prevailed,  and  brigandage  flourished.101  To  add  to  these  evils 
factions  developed,102  and  either  those  observing  or  those  ig- 
noring the  interdict  were  oppressed ;  in  Limoges,  for  example, 
those  persons  who  heeded  the  interdict  were  fined  by  the  op- 
posing party.103  Ambassadors  were  affected  by  interdicts  laid 
at  home,104  and  even  travelers  in  an  interdicted  country  suffered 
the  same  inconvenience  as  the  inhabitants.105 

97  (a)  Rot.  Pat.,  I,  99.     The  king  confirmed  the  testament  of  Gilbert, 
Bishop  of  Rochester,      (b)  Hontheim,  Hist.  Trevir.,  I,  Urk.  491.     Cited 
from  Raumer,  Gesch.  Hohenst.,  VI,  161. 

98  The  material  cited  above  is  mainly  from  English  sources.     For  this 
reason  it  may  not  be  quite   typical.     However,  English  sources   for  the 
period  of  Innocent  III  are  more   complete  and  available  than  those  of 
other  countries,  which  may  account  for  the  fact  that  similar  material  is  not 
equally  abundant  for  interdicts  elsewhere. 

99  See  below,  chapter  IV. 

100  (a)  See  above,  n.  87.      (b)    In   England   John   oppressed  first  the 
clerks  and  then  the  people. 

101  Mariana,  De  Rebus  Hispan.,  lib.  XIII,  c.  12.     "  Latrocinia  et  male- 
ficia  quae  ex  superiorum  temporum  [of  interdict]   licentia  et  Sanctii  Regis 
socordia  impune  grassabantur  tota  provincia  sustulit." 

102 Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XVI,  134  (Potth.,4839).  "  Mandamus  quatenus  post  - 
quam  interdictum  Angliae  fuerit  relaxatum  omnes  conjurationeset  factiones, 
si  quae  occasione  discordiae  inter  regnum  et  sacerdotium  factae  sunt, 
denunties  auctoritate  nostra  irritas  et  inanes." 

103  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  97  (Potth.,  1934).  (b)  Tractatus  de  Inter- 
dicto,  Proposit.  VII.  The  Seven  Theologians  consider  it  just  that  those 
who  observe  the  interdict  of  Venice  should  lose  their  properties.  "  Eccle- 
siasticis  hujus  Dominii  Justus  imminet  metus  amissionis  vitae  et  bonorum 
suorum  et  etiam  multorum  malorum  tarn  privatorum  quam  publicorum, 
quae  ipsorum  propinquis  inde  evenient,  si  interdictum  servaverint." 

104Sarpi,  Quarrels  of  Paul  V,  108,  135-137.  Attempts  were  made  by 
papal  agents  to  exclude  Venetian  ambassadors  from  church  services.  The 
King  of  Spain  did  not  use  his  chapel  for  many  days,  in  order  to  avoid  de- 
claring himself  on  the  status  of  the  ambassador,  ibid.,  112-113.  The 
Duke  of  Savoy  acted  similarly,  ibid.,  118-119.  The  Venetian  agent  at 
Nancy  and  all  his  house  were  excluded  from  confession.  When  news  of 
the  agreement  of  Venice  and  the  pope  reached  Spain,  the  papal  nuncio 


68  THE  INTERDICT 

It  was  to  be  expected  that  the  guilty  person  and  the  district 
included  with  him  would  both  feel  the  interdict,  but  not  that 
the  church  would  suffer  from  the  discipline  she  used.  As 
a  matter  of  fact  the  church  and  the  hierarchy  often  suffered 
very  much  from  the  interdict.  In  the  first  place,  the  persons 
whose  misdeeds  provoked  the  sentence  often  resisted  what 
they  regarded  as  the  aggression  of  the  church  by  most  violent 
counter-measures.  In  the  second  place,  the  public  instead  of 
rising  against  the  offenders  sometimes  rose  against  the  author- 
ity pronouncing  the  cessation  of  services.106  The  dangers  of 
such  an  occurrence  were  fully  realized  by  the  church.  She 
knew  that  public  opinion  could  neither  be  foretold  nor  created 
at  will,  and  therefore  she  usually  repeated  her  threats,107  and 
actually  promulgated  the  sentence  only  as  a  last  resort.108 

there,  Easter  being  near,  advised  the  ambassador  of  Venice  to  abstain  from 
communion  at  Easter,  considering  that  shortly  after  he  might  be  present 
with  the  pope's  permission.  The  ambassador  refused  to  receive  his  coun- 
sel and  was  admitted  to  all  ceremonies,  ibid. ,  410-411. 

105  (a)  Bishop  Hugh  of  Lincoln,  traveling  in  France,  was  obliged  to  re- 
tire to  a  monastery  in  order  to  be  able  to  celebrate  mass.     Vita  S.  Hugonis 
Lincol.  (JR.  Ser.},  lib.  v,  c.  15,  p.  324.     (b)  Capefigue,  II,  145,  says  that 
on  the  death  of  nobles  their  names  were  not  entered   on  the  registers. 
Hurter  inclines  to  doubt  this  statement.     The  citations  given  by  Capefigue 
do  not  justify  his  contention. 

106  (a)   Steph.   Tornac.,  Ep.    235,  in  Migne,  Pat.   Lat.,  211,  col.  504. 
"  Insultat  nobis  protervitas  laicorum  et  occasione  sumpta  de  silentio  nostro, 
pravis  comminationibus  armati,  in  publicis  et  privatis  colloquiis  conflant 
ejectionem    sacerdotum,    direptionem    rerum,    contumelias    personarum, 
Dicunt  se  solvere  quod  non  rapuerunt,  pro  peccato  alterius  injuste  puniri, 
sacramentis   carere    quibus   utpote     catholici    parati    sunt    parere."     (b) 
Ibid.,  237,  in  ibid.,  col.   506.      Stephen,  after  relating  his  endeavors  to 
enforce  an  interdict,  adds,  "Pro  his   omnibus  digna  reporto  jurgiorum 
stipendia,  increpationes   in  populis,  indignationem  et   iram  ...          (c) 
Innocent  III  (Epp.,  II,  75;   Gesta,  c.  58;    Potth.,   716)  relates  that  the 
Spanish  bishops  complained  because  the  laity  did  not  pay  their  customary 
dues,     (d)  Cone.   Lugdun.  II,   1274,  c.  31,  in   Hard.,  VII,  718.     The 
council  of  Lyons  took  the  clergy  under  its  protection  because  the)  were  so 
much  abused  by  the  people,     (e)  Clemens  XI,  Const.  "Ad  Plurimas," 
1713,  in  Bullar.  Rom.,  XXI,  588.     Secular  and  regular  clergy  suffered 
confiscation  of  property,  imprisonment,  and  exile. 

107  Cf.  above,  p.  37. 

108  Cone.  Ravennat.,  1314,  c.  9,  in  Hard.,  VII,  1390.     "  Quoniam  ex 
sententiis  interdict!  non  est  dubium  multa  oriri  scandala  .    .    .  propterea 
non  debent  sine  urgenti  necessitate  proferri  ..." 


THE  INTERDICT  IN  FORCE  69 

Threats  of  interdict  could  do  the  church  but  little  harm  ;  and, 
if  successful,  they  might  do  her  great  good.  Wisely  therefore 
did  the  church ,  as  far  as  possible ,  rely  upon  them  rather  than 
upon  the  actual  sentence  ;  for,  in  the  words  of  a  contemporary 
of  Henry  II,  "  It  is  not  well  that  the  sentence  should  go  into 
effect  when  the  threat  alone  easily  accomplishes  what  is 
desired  ".109 

When,  however,  the  interdict  was  laid,  and  was  opposed  by 
potentates  or  parishioners,  the  church  and  clergy  experienced 
grave  hardships.  Particularly  did  ecclesiastical  property  be- 
come subject  to  confiscation,  seizure,  and  damage.110  Reve- 
nues of  the  church  were  seriously  diminished;111  so  seriously, 
indeed,  that  in  Genoa  it  was  at  one  time  found  expedient  not 
to  reassign  vacant  prebends,  but  instead  to  devote  these  in- 
comes to  the  common  use.112  Monastic  orders  suffered  great 
losses ;  but,  as  they  were  less  in  touch  with  the  populace  and 
often  enjoyed  papal  privileges  of  exemption,  their  hardships 
were  not  so  grave  as  those  of  the  secular  clerks.  In  one  case 
the  clerics  had  to  get  special  permission  to  sell  their  pro- 
duce ; 113  in  another  case  clerics  who  observed  the  interdict 

109  Mat.  Hist.  Becket  (E.  Ser.},  VII,  175. 

110  (a)  Const.  Galteri  Archiep.  Senon.,  c.  14,  in  Hard.,  VI,  560.     (b) 
Coggeshall,  in  A'ec.,  XVIII,  91.     (c)  Rigord,  De  Gest.  Ph.  Aug.  ad  an. 
1199,  in  Rfc.i  XVII,    51.     "...  bona   eorum    diripuit  ..."     (d) 
Inn.  Ill,  Epp. ,  VI,  97  (Potth,,   1934).     "  .    .       bona  ceperunt  eorum 

..."  (e)  Chron.  S.  Denis  ad  an.  1209,  in  Rec.,  XVII,  394.  (f) 
Rot.  Claus,  I,  107,  108,  no,  ill,  126,  130,  174.  (g)  Rot.  Chart. ,  I, 
203-204,  214.  (h)  Rot.  Pat.,  I,  101,  102,  124.  (i)  Giry,  Hist,  de  S. 
Omer,  138. 

111  (a)  Chron.  S.  Denis  ad  an.   1199,  in  Rec.,  XVII,  387.     Fees  and 
rents  of  the  clergy  were  seized,     (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  II,  75  (Potth.,  716). 
Spanish  bishops  complain   that,  because   of  the  interdict,    "  cum  clerici 
laicis   spiritualia  ministrare  non  possent,  laici   clericis  temporalia  subtra- 
hebant,  oblationes,  primitias  et  decimas  detinentes. "     (c)   Mansi,  XXIII, 
1184,  c.  4.     A  decree  against  laymen  who  fail  henceforth  to  pay  tithes  in 
time  of  interdict. 

112  See  Appendix,  case  67.     Case  of  Genoa. 

115  R ot.  daus.y  I,  114.  "  Manclatum  est  .  .  .  quod  permittant  Archi- 
episcopos,  Episcopos,  Abbates,  et  omnes  viros  religios  et  omnes  clericos 
vendere  blada  sua  per  summas  usque  ad  festum  S.  Katerine." 


70  THE  INTERDICT 

were  exiled  or  outlawed  or  imprisoned,114  and,  if  exiled,  they 
dared  not  enter  the  realm  without  royal  safe -conduct.113  It 
even  came  to  pass  that  an  indignant  populace  attacked  the 
clergy  for  depriving  it  of  religious  consolations.116  In  England 
vacancies  remained  unfilled  and  the  king  retained  the  custody 
in  the  meantime ; m  many  clerks  chose  to  bear  the  expense  of 
buying  peace  from  the  oppressor  rather  than  to  incur  the 
greater  losses  and  dangers  attendant  upon  continuance  of 
hostility.118  The  church  endeavored  to  protect  the  hierarchy, 
and  an  inevitable  condition  for  the  relaxation  of  the  interdict 
was  the  restoration  of  properties  taken  from  ecclesiastics  and 
satisfaction  for  damage  done.119  In  England  a  commission 
was  appointed  to  estimate  this  damage.120  It  is  manifest  that 
the  interdict  was  not  a  care- free  vacation  for  the  clergy,  but 
that  they  shared  with  the  populace  the  harmful  effects  of  the 
cessation  of  spiritual  ministrations. 

114  (a)  Clemens  XI,  Const.  "Ad  pluvimas",  1713,  in  Bullar.  Rom., 
XXI,  588.  Girgenti,  1713.  (b)  See  also  the  cases  of  France  and 
Auxerre  in  Appendix,  cases  57  and  88. 

115 Rot.  Pat.,  I,  82. 

116  (a)   See  above,  n.  io6a.      (b)  Hocsemius,  Hist.   Pont.  Leod.  ad  an. 
1255,    in   Chapeaville,  II,  278f.     "...  canonici   pro    parte    a  civitate 
recedunt  interdictum  ne  violare  cogantur." 

117  Itot.    Claus.,  I,  107,  no,  et  passim.     The  patent  rolls  give  similar 
evidence. 

118  (a)  Rot.  Clans.,  I,  io8-ii3b.     (b)  Vita  S.  Hugonis  Lincol.,  lib.  V, 
c.    13    (R.   Ser.),  303-304.     "...  cum    tempore   interdicti  Anglicani 
omnes  fere  ecclesiarum  rectores,  quos  tamen  in  exilium  barbaricus   regis 
furor  minis  coegerat  interveniente  pecunia  bona  sua  redimerent  a  manu 
laicali  ..." 

119  (a)    Const.    Galteri   Archiep.    Senon.,    c.    14,  in   Hard.,   VI,    560. 
"  Praecipimus  ut  nullatenus  relaxetur  [interdictum]  donee  ad  arbitrium  et 
moderamen    relaxantis    presbyteris    parochialibus    et   damnis   et    perditis 
interdicti  occasione   illatis  plane   fuerit   satisfactum  vel   de    satisfaciendo 
cautum."      (b)  Cone.  Skenninge,  1248,  c.  8,  in  Mag.  f.  d.  K.-Gesch.  d. 
Nordens  (Munter),  I,  188.     (c)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XV,  236  (Potth.,  4398). 
"  .  mandamus,    quatenus    concessiones,   pactiones   sive  promissiones 
quas  clerici  seu  religiosi  viri  cujuscunque  professionis  vel  ordinis  Joanni 
regi  Angliae   super  ablatis   vel  extortis   post  interdictum  fecerunt 
denuntietis  irritas  et   inanes  ...     Si   qui  vero    praedictorum  noluerint 
ablata  vel  extorta  repetere,  detentores  eorum  nihilominus  ipsa  restituere 
compellatis."     Cf.  Rot.  Pat.,  I,  124.     (d)  Marlot,  Hist,  de  Reims,  III, 
823-826,  No.  183. 

120  Rot.  Claus.,  I,  io6b. 


THE  INTERDICT  IN  FORCE  7 1 

Besides  these  material  losses,  the  church  experienced  spir- 
itual harm  through  both  the  clergy  and  the  people.  Com- 
paratively little  has  been  recorded  regarding  the  effects  of  the 
interdict  on  the  religious  life  of  the  clergy ;  but  that  little 
shows  that  the  effect  was  bad.  They  often  disagreed  on  the 
question  of  observing  the  interdict,  and  this  produced  danger 
of  schism.121  Discontinuance  of  the  daily  services  caused 
remissness  among  the  clerks ;  and,  since  they  were  perforce 
negligent  of  spiritual  affairs,  it  is  not  surprising  that  they  went 
unshaven  and  unkempt  during  interdict.122  The  regulars  and 
the  seculars  disputed  with  each  other  over  various  privileges 
possessed  by  the  former,  especially  over  the  right  of  burial. 
Ecclesiastical  orders  not  infrequently  had  privileges  granting 
them  the  right  to  bury  devotees  regardless  of  interdict,123  in 
consequence  of  which  they  endeavored  to  secure  burial  pledges 
from  as  many  laymen  as  possible.124  Under  such  conditions 


121  (a)  Inn.   Ill,  Epp.,  I,  295  (Potth.,  712).      (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  Ill, 
15.     "...  timendum  esset  de  filia  [Gallicana  ecclesia],  ne  a  paternis 
prorsus  exorbitaret  vestigiis,  et  quae  ...  in  devotione  sedis  apostolicae 
solebat  esse  ferventior,  ab  ejus  obsequio  redderetur  nimium  aliena 

(c)  Hist.  Episc.  Autiss.,  c.  59,  in  Labbe,  Nova  Bibl.,  I,  481.  (d)  Inn. 
Ill,  Epp.,  XII,  9  (Potth.,  3686).  (e)  Mat.  Hist.  Becket  (R.  Ser.),  V, 
321.  Gilbert  Foliet  advises  Alexander  not  to  issue  an  interdict,  and 
warns  him  of  the  danger  of  schism. 

122  (a)    Dominicus   Soto,  in   4.   distinct.,   22.    qu.,  art.    i.     Cited  from 
Pithou,  Des  Interdicts  Eccl.,  18-19.     "  Interdictum,  quamvis  ex  una  parte 
ad  terrorem  excommunicatorum  conducat,  ex  altera  tamen  in  periculum 
divini  cultus  vergit  potissimum;   nam  tune  non  solum  populus  desuetudine 
frequentandi  divina  officia,  affectum  eorum  et  sensum  perdit,  verum  etiarn 
et  clerus  ipse  fit  remissior,  et  ignavior  ad  eadem  divina  celebranda  qua 
utique  ratione  et  divina  religio  detrimentum  patitur,  et  populus  solet  in 
moribus  silescere."     (b)    Inn.    Ill,    Epp.,  XII,  9  (Potth.,  3686).     The 
Cistercians  in  England  averred  "  .    .    .  quod  ex  dissuetudine  celebrandi 
gravis   in    religione    jactura   et    in    ordine    dissolutio    secutura    timetur." 
(c)  Du  Cange,  Glossarium,  under  "  Interdictum". 

123  See  below,  chapter  IV. 

m  Berengarius,  Bibl.  Nat.,  MS.  Lat.  15415,  fol.  232,  col.  IV.  When 
a  church  and  cemetery  are  interdicted  it  might  happen,  "quod  aliqui 
religiosi  vel  clerici  seculares  aliquos  inducunt  ad  vovendum,  jurandum,  vel 
fide  interposita  seu  aliter  promittendum  ut  apud  eorum  ecclesias  sepulturam 
eligant  vel  jam  electam  ulterius  non  invitent;  si  tales  in  suis  ecclesiis 

vel  cimiteriis  praesumpserint  sepeliri  ad  restitutionem  tarn  sepultorum  cor- 
porum,  si  petantur,  quam  omnium  que  occasione  sepulture  illorum  per- 
venerint  ad  eosdem  .  .  .  faciendam  tenentur  .  .  " 


72  THE  INTERDICT 

considerable  loss  might  be  suffered  by  the  secular  clergy  because 
of  the  diversion  of  burial  fees  and  the  like  into  other  channels. 
The  losers  invariably  complained  and  sought  redress ,  and  with 
what  success  appears  from  the  agreements  in  which  some 
return  of  unusual  incomes  derived  as  a  result  of  interdict  is 
stipulated.125 

If  the  frequent  assertions  of  the  sources  are  accepted  as 
evidence,  the  effect  of  the  interdict  was  more  disastrous  to  the 
church  through  the  harm  done  the  laity  than  through  harm 
done  the  clergy.  Even  when  the  church  dominated  the  re- 
ligious situation  the  people  grew  cold  in  their  allegiance, 
heresies  flourished,  vices  increased;  they  so  far  forgot  re- 
ligious ceremonies  that,  after  an  interdict  was  relaxed,  they 
mocked  and  scoffed  at  the  priests  who  were  performing  ser- 
vices.126 Repeatedly  the  growth  of  heresies  is  ascribed  to 
interdicts.  Father  Paul,  the  apologist  of  Venice,  boldly  de- 
clares that  the  numerous  interdicts  and  excommunications  of 
the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries  were  the  cause  for  the 
great  prevalence  of  heresies,  which  had  begun  at  that  time 
and  had  gained  strength  to  his  day.1'27  Following  this  line  of 

125  See  above,  n.  10. 

126  (a)  Gesta,  c.  58.     For  quotation  see  below,  p.  74:   "  From  heretics 
.  .  .   ",  etc.     (b)   Hist.    Episc.  Autiss.,  in  Labbe,  Nova  Bib!.,  I,  475. 
(c)  C.   2.  de  sent,  excom.     Extrav.   comm.   5.    10.     "  .    .      adolescentes 
et  parvuli,  participantes  rarius  sacramenta,  minus  inflammantur  et  solid  ant  ur 
in    fide,   fidelium   tepescit    devotio,    haereses   pullulant    et   multiplicantur 
pericula  animarum."     (d)  C.   ult.   de  sent,   excom.   VI.    5.    II.     "  Quia 
vero  ex  districtione  hujusmodi  statutorum  [of  interdict]  excrescit  indevotio 
populi,    pullulant   haereses,   et    infinita   pericula    animarum  insurgunt,   ac 
ecclesiis   sine    culpa   earum    debita   obsequia   subtrahuntur  .    .  (e) 
Cone.    Ravennat.,    1314,   c.    19,   in    Hard  ,   VII,    1390.     "  Quoniam    ex 
sententiis  interdicti  non  est  dubium  multa  oriri  scandala,  ex  quibus  non 
solum  saepe  puniuntur  insontes,  immo  excrescit  indevotio  populi,  pullulant 
haereses,  ac  ecclesiis  ac  ecclesiasticis  personis  sine   culpa  earum  debita 
subtrahuntur  obsequia  ..."     (f)  The  reply  of  Bellarmin  to  the  Seven 
Theologians   is   as    follows   (Bellarmin,    Risposta^    Proposit.    VII):    "In 
Uvbino   duro  1'interdetto   ancora  piu  longo  tempo  come  gli  stessi  sette 
Dottori  attestano  nel  discorso  della  quinta  prop,  et  talmente  fu  asservato 
senza  sospetto  nessuno  di  violenza  popolare,  che  bisogno  poi  usare  molto  dili- 
genza,  et  molte  essortationi  per  ridurre  il  popolo  alia  frequenza  delle  messe. ' ' 

'"Apologia  P.  M.  Pauli,  531,  col.  I.  "...  haereses  anno  1300 
natae,  et  hodie  ad  summum  evectae,  aliunde  ortum  non  duxerunt  quam  ab 
innumeris  excommunicationibus  et  interdictis  quae  coeperunt  ferri  anno 


THE  INTERDICT  IN  FORCE 


73 


thought  the  interdict  may  be  said  to  have  had  a  significant 
part  in  producing  the  movement  which  finally  culminated  in 
the  Reformation.  If  Christians  were  deprived  of  the  benefits 
of  ecclesiastical  ministrations  when  they  were  in  no  way  cul- 
pable ,  they  might  reasonably  conclude  that  such  a  deprivation 
could  not  bring  them  harm  in  the  life  to  come ;  and  if  the 
hope  of  eternal  life  suffered  no  diminution  from  a  deprivation 
of  services,  often  unjust,  why  should  it  suffer  from  voluntary 
cessation?  By  these  logical  steps  many  a  layman  undoubtedly 
was  brought  to  reason  that  the  mediation  of  priests  was  not 
essential  to  salvation  ;  and  thus  the  interdict,  that  weapon 
which  served  to  establish  the  church  in  its  struggle  against 
external  and  temporal  powers,  contributed  to  the  weakening 
of  her  inner  and  spiritual  control. 

Of  the  general  effects  of  interdict  perhaps  no  more  inter- 
esting description  can  be  given  than  in  the  phrases  used  by  a 
few  of  the  chroniclers.  The  Chronicle  of  St.  Amand  com- 
pares the  interdict  to  the  Babylonian  Captivity.128  Stephen 
of  Tournay  relates  that  altars  were  contaminated,  cemeteries 
profaned,  and  the  sacraments  of  the  Lord  publicly  sold.129  At 
another  place  13°  he  says  :  ' '  As  yet  the  recent  wounds  of  the 
former  interdict  still  flow  \_spirant~\  ;  nor  do  the  wounded 
breathe  \_respirant~\.  And  if  a  second  blow  comes  redoubled, 
death  will  be  within  the  gates ;  and  in  the  sad  silence  those 
heresies  which  are  already  beginning  to  put  forth  sprouts  will 
grow  strong;  spiritual  melodies  will  be  unheard,  and  those 
who  have  been  accustomed  to  eat  \manducare\  the  bread  of 
life  at  the  table  of  the  Lord  will  be  compelled  to  beg  \niendi- 
care~]"  The  interdict  on  Leon  provoked  several  Spanish 
prelates  to  exert  themselves  in  behalf  of  their  kingdom ;  they 

I2CO,  ac  tot  illo  seculo  viguerunt.  Qui  omnium  illorum  annorum  historias 
leget  lacrymas  contineri  non  potuerit  tantamspiritualem  stragem  legentem." 

128Chron.  S.  Amandi,  in  Rec.,  XVIII,  592.  "...  transmigrationem 
Babylonis  repraesentare  videtur". 

^MSteph.  Tornac.,  Epp.,  246,  in  Migne,  Pat.  Lat.,  211,  col.  513. 
"  Contaminantur  altaria,  profanantur  coemeteria,  prostituuntur  in  tributis 
Dominica  sacramenta. " 

130 Ibid.,  231,  in  ibid.,  col.  501. 


74  THE  INTERDICT 

asserted  that  from  the  interdict  a  three-fold  danger  from 
heretics,  Saracens,  and  Christians  threatened  the  kingdom. 
"  From  heretics,  because  in  pursuance  of  the  interdict  the  lips 
of  pastors  were  closed  in  those  parts  and  the  faithful  could  not 
be  instructed  by  them  against  the  heretics,  or  in  any  way 
taught  to  resist  them  \  so  that,  both  from  this  cause  and  also 
because  the  King  of  Leon,  averring  that  he  was  hindered  J)y 
the  interdict,  did  not  oppose  them,  the  heretics  prevailed 
against  the  faithful  and  various  heresies  were  now  spreading  in 
the  kingdom.  From  the  Saracens,  for,  inasmuch  as  the 
people  of  Spain  had  customarily  been  induced  to  attack  the 
pagans  by  the  exhortations  and  remissions  of  the  church,  the 
devotion  of  the  people  grew  lukewarm  when  the  office  of 
preaching  ceased ;  for,  as  long  as  the  people  saw  themselves 
interdicted,  being  subjected  to  the  same  penalty  as  their 
prince  on  account  of  a  fault  to  which  they  had  consented, 
though  merely  by  keeping  silent,  they  probably  did  not  regard 
themselves  faultless  and  for  this  reason  they  were  less  ardent 
to  war  against  the  Saracens,  fearing  they  might  die  in  sin. 
From  the  Catholics,  for,  as  clerics  could  not  minister  to  the 
spiritual  needs  of  the  laity,  laymen  denied  the  temporal  ne- 
cessities to  the  clergy,  retaining  oblations,  first-fruits,  and 
tithes.  Now,  as  the  clergy  in  those  parts  were  largely  de- 
pendent on  these,  they  being  withdrawn,  clerks  were  forced 
not  only  to  beg,  but  to  serve  and  toil  for  the  Jews,  to  the 
opprobrium  of  the  church  and  all  Christendom."  131 

From  a  later  time132  comes  another  equally  interesting 
account  of  what  effect  it  was  hoped  the  interdict  would  have. 
At  Rome,  says  Sarpi,  it  was  expected  to  have  three  notable 
effects.  "  i.  That  the  Religious  would  all  depart  the  Countrey 
and  so  the  interdict  at  least  by  necessitie  should  be  observed  ; 
2 .  That  Cities  and  people  seeing  themselves  deprived  of  Divine 
Offices  and  Exercises  would  seditiously  be  moved  and  send  to 
the  Prince  to  give  satisfaction  to  his  Holinesse ;  3.  That  upon 
this  occasion  the  Nobilitie  might  be  disordered,  grieved,  and 
terrified,  and  so  divided  amongst  themselves." 

131  Gesta,  c.  58.  IM  Sarpi,  Quarrels  of  Paul  V,  p.  100. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

MODERATION  AND  RELAXATION  OF  THE  INTERDICT. 

To  complete  our  discussion  of  the  interdict  it  is  necessary 
to  present  the  means  by  which  the  severity  of  the  sentence 
could  be  tempered  to  any  desired  degree,  and  be  made  to  fit 
any  conditions.  This  was  done  by  privileges,  and  by  mitiga- 
tions such  as  partial1  and  ambulatory  interdicts.  Privileges 
were  freely  used  to  blunt  the  edge  of  the  interdict ;  by  grant- 
ing them  the  church  sought  in  part  to  still  the  accusation  of 
injustice  raised  against  her  for  afflicting  the  innocent  with  the 
guilty.  The  first  known  privilege  was  given  the  monastery  of 
Fleury  (Orleans)  in  99 7. 2  During  the  eleventh  century 
privileges  became  established  in  principle  ;  during  the  twelfth 
they  became  numerous.  They  were  given  usually  by  papal, 
and  rarely  by  episcopal  authority.3  They  were  always  strictly 
construed  and  were  held  to  confer  no  rights  not  distinctly  and 
explicitly  granted;4  thus  tertiaries  or  "conversi"  were  not 
included  in  the  benefits  of  a  privilege  given  an  order.5  Fur- 
thermore, they  were  revocable  at  any  time  by  the  authority 

1  Partial  interdicts  are  those  which  prohibit  only  a  part  of  the  services 
usually  denied.  Their  use  was  not  common. 

2Aimoin,  Vita  S.  Abbonis,  c.  12,  in  Rec. ,  X,  335.  Cf.  Hinschius,  V, 
20,  n.  i.  Kober  states  that  this  is  the  earliest  privilege  known. 

3  (a)  Miraeus,  Opp.  DipL,  I,  97.  Privilege  by  the  Bishop  of  Cambrai 
to  the  church  "  Grimbergana  ".  "  Concede  etiam  ut  si  inbannitur  terra 
remotis  excommunicatis  haec  cantet  Ecclesia,  clausis  januis."  (b)  Anti- 
quus  Cartul.  Eccl.  Baiocensis,  No.  47,  in  Mint.  Soc.  Antiq.  Norm.,  VIII 
(1834),  ii,  443-445.  The  Bishop  of  Beauvais  grants  a  privilege  to  those 
who  shall  contribute  to  the  fund  for  the  repair  of  the  cathedral:  "  propter 
nullam  interdict!  sententiam  nisi  nominatim  excommunicati  fuerint  ecclesi- 
asticis  priventur  sacramentis." 

*  Kober,  XXI,  338-340. 

5  C.  3.  de  sent,  excom.  in  Clement.  5.  10. 

(75) 


76  THE  INTERDICT 

which  granted  them,  and  so  it  came  to  pass  that  Innocent  III, 
in  his  endeavor  to  make  his  interdicts  on  England  and  on 
France  of  the  utmost  severity,  allowed  no  privileges  to  prevent 
the  observance  of  the  sentence.6 

Privileges  were  of  two  general  classes  :  First,  they  forbade 
judges  to  lay  interdicts  on  designated  persons  or  localities.7 
Second,  they  conferred  exemption  from  all  interdicts  upon 
persons,8  such  as  princes9  or  prelates;10  upon  localities,  such 
as  royal  and  noble  chapels,60  churches,11  hospitals,12  districts 
and  countries  ; 13  and  upon  corporations ,  such  as  military14  and 
religious  orders.15  Privileges  granted  to  persons  varied  in 
their  character.  William,  Lord  of  Montpellier,  received  per- 
mission to  have  silent  services  in  his  chapel  in  time  of  inter- 
dict, unless  he  himself  should  chance  to  be  excommunicated.16 
"  G.  de  Blosaville,"  his  wife,  and  his  mother  were  to  hear 
services  behind  closed  doors.17  Baldwin,  Emperor  of  Con- 
stantinople,18 Simon  de  Montfort  and  his  wife,19  and  the 

6  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XII,  9  (Potth.,  3686).     (b)  Inn.   Ill,  Epp.,  XI, 
121  (Potth.,  3175).      (c)  Inn.  Opp.,  IV,  190,  No.  136.      (d)  Migne,  Pat, 
Lat.,  214,  col.  xcvii,  n.  60.     (e)  Raynald.,  Anna!.,  1238,  XLVIII. 

7  The  nature  of  those  privileges  which  forbade  the  promulgation  of  inter- 
dict upon  some  person  or  locality  is  clear  without  further  explanation. 

8  Kober  maintains  that  privilege  does  not  exempt  from  episcopal  inter- 
dict. 

9  (a)  J-L.,  5552,  9860.      (b)   Potth.,  1452,    1540,   1689,    1883,   2203, 
3174,  4i35a,  4485,  4842,  4911,  5143,  5213,  5269. 

10  (a)  J-L.,  12446.     (b)  Potth.,  328,  1527,  3604. 

11  Potth.,  2203,  4842,  4911. 

12  (a)  Potth.,  5449.     (b)    Quell.  Gesch.  Stadt  Koln,  II,  263.     A  privi- 
lege is  given  to  the  superintendent  of  the  leper-hospital  at  Cologne. 

13  (a)  J-L.,  16173   (10053).     (b)   Potth.,  5924,  10402,  10463,  11023. 
(c)  Auvray,  Reg.,  3334. 

14  (a)  J-L.,    13745  (8833),  Hospitallers;  ibid.,  17446,  Templars,     (b) 
Archives  Nat.,  L.  236.     Cited  from  Davidsohn,  Philip  II  und  Ingeborg, 
101.     Templars. 

15Henriquez,  Regula  Const,  et  Privil.  ordin.  Cisterc.,  Privileg.  VII, 
VIII,  XI,  LXXI. 

16  Potth.,  1450,  1451,  1452. 

17  J-L.,  9860. 

18  Potth.,  5143. 

19  Potth.,  5213. 


MODERA  TION  AND  RE  LAX  A  TION  77 

Bishops  of  Cremona  and  Pampluna20  had  similar  privileges. 
The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Stephen  Langton,  and  the 
Bishops  of  London,  Ely,  and  Worcester  were  allowed  to  cele- 
brate services  in  spite  of  the  interdict  on  England ,  if  for  any 
reason  they  should  chance  to  cross  to  the  island.21  Religious 
orders  were  the  principal  recipients  of  the  privileges  granted 
to  corporations.  A  typical  privilege  of  this  class  is  to  this 
effect :  the  recipients,  in  time  of  interdict,  had  the  right  to 
celebrate  offices  behind  closed  doors,  with  subdued  voice  and 
without  the  ringing  of  bells,  those  interdicted  and  excom- 
municated nominatim  being  excluded  ;  and  to  give  canonical 
burial  to  those  of  their  number  who  died  in  good  standing.22 
Exceptional  privileges  were  those  by  which  monks  were  al- 
lowed to  ring  a  single  bell  for  a  short  time  in  case  of  the  burial 
of  one  of  their  number ; 2H  or  those  by  which  they  were  per- 
mitted to  call  the  brethren  from  their  labors  to  the  church  by 
ringing  one  bell,  provided  their  monastery  was  so  separated 
from  villages  and  cities  that  the  sound  of  this  bell  could  not 
be  heard.24  The  Praemonstratensians  were  privileged  to  cele- 
brate divine  offices  solemnly,  if  their  churches  were  removed 
from  habitations,  on  condition  that  the  excommunicated  and 
interdicted  be  kept  so  far  away  that  they  could  not  hear ;  in 
churches  near  human  dwellings  they  were  to  observe  the  limi- 
tations set  by  the  typical  privilege.25  Peculiar  privileges 
are  the  following  :  the  Council  of  Laval  permitted  the  canons 
to  recite  canonical  hours,26  and  Boniface  IX  permitted 
the  council  of  Cologne  to  hear  mass  behind  closed  doors  on 

20 (a)  Potth.,  1527.     (b)  Potth.,  328. 

"Potth.,  3604. 

"  (a)  Cartul.  de  1'Abbaye  du  Paraclet,  in  Coll.  des  Princip.  Cartul.  du 
Dice,  de  Troyes,  34,  No.  21.  (b)  Cartul.  de  1'Abbaye  de  S.  Loup,  ibid. , 
No.  134.  (c)  Potth.,  4984.  (d)  J-L.,  13514,  14601  (9460),  14704, 
16172. 

"Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  23  (Potth.,  1862). 

"Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  V,  2. 

"Potth.,  1247. 

18 Cone,  apud  Vallem  Guidonis,  1242,  c.  6,  in  Hard.,  VII,  349. 


78  THE  INTERDICT 

days  of  council  session.27  The  Archbishop  of  Cologne,  in  his 
eagerness  to  increase  the  funds  for  building  the  cathedral, 
gave  the  following  privilege  :  "  We  order  that,  if  any  churches 
shall  have  been  put  under  interdict  by  us,  or  the  archdeacons, 
or  the  deans,  whenever  on  Sundays  or  feast-days  it  shall  seem 
that  the  aforesaid  matter  [the  building  of  the  cathedral]  can 
be  advanced,  holy  offices  shall  be  celebrated,  persons  excom- 
municated and  interdicted  nominatim  being  excluded ;  and , 
because  of  the  evident  need  of  the  said  work,  the  word  of  ex- 
hortation shall  be  preached  to  the  people."28 

A  privilege  frequently  granted  was  the  right  to  bury  the 
dead.  This  was  doubtless  valuable  because  of  burial  fees  and 
payments,  which,  if  desirable  in  ordinary  times,  must  in  time 
of  interdict  have  been  especially  remunerative  to  those  privi- 
leged to  bestow  the  dead.  Sometimes  persons  secured  the 
right  of  burial  for  themselves,29  but  this  was  less  common  than 
the  privileges  of  monasteries  to  bury  whoever  might  come.80 
La  Charite"  claimed  this  privilege,31  St.  Bartholomew's  Hos- 
pital in  London  had  the  right  to  bury  its  dead,32  and  the 
Templars  could  bury  any  but  excommunicated  and  interdicted 
persons,33  which  was  the  common  limitation  of  the  privilege. 

A  very  decided  moderation  of  the  interdict  resulted  from 
the  ambulatorium ,  which  began  to  be  used  about  the  middle 
of  the  twelfth  century.  This  interdict  was  designed  to  ac- 
complish just  as  much  as  the  local  general  interdict  without 
many  of  its  evil  effects.  Intrinsically  it  is  the  local  interdict 

"Chapters,  (a)  J-L.,  16854  (10368),  16998  (10426),  17159,  17413, 
17544.  (b)  J-L.,  "16708.  Benefactors  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  (c) 
Quell.  Gesch.  Stadt  Koln,  VI,  7.  City  Council  of  Cologne. 

28  Ibid.,  II,  502-504. 

29  J-L.,  16708. 

30  J-L.,  13963. 

81  Gall.  Christ.,  XII,  Instrumenta,  col.  174.  "...  monachi  dicunt 
quod  habent  privilegia  a  sede  apostolica,  quod  durantibus  interdictis 
possunt  admittere  in  suis  cimiteriis  ad  jus  ecclesiasticae  sepulturae  omnes" 
[except  excom.  or  those  responsible  for  the  interdict]. 

32  See  above,  chap.  Ill,  n.  67. 

33  (a)  J-L.,  16742.     (b)  J-L.,   15820  (9904).     Usurers  are  excepted. 


MODERATION  AND  RELAXATION 


79 


in  motion ;  except  for  its  ambulatory  character  it  offers  noth- 
ing new,  and  whatever  has  been  said  of  the  theory,  causes, 
and  effects  of  the  local  interdict  applies  also  to  the  ambula- 
tory interdict.  Instead  of  putting  the  whole  of  a  prince's 
dominions  under  sentence,  only  that  part  suffered  in  which  he 
chanced  to  be ;  the  remainder  in  the  meantime  celebrated  all 
services  in  the  usual  way.  The  ambulatory  interdict  wandered 
about  with  the  offender  as  did  his  own  shadow.  He  was 
never  out  of  interdicted  territory,  or  beyond  the  reach  of 
public  sentiment.  The  populace,  instead  of  rejoicing  at  his 
approach,  must  have  rejoiced  at  his  departure.  Bishop 
Stephen  of  Tournay,  in  writing  to  the  Archbishop  of  Reims 
regarding  a  local  interdict  threatened  against  the  Count  of 
Flanders,  said  that  it  seemed  to  him  and  to  many  other 
prudent  persons  that  the  Count  would  both  be  wounded  more 
deeply,  and  disconcerted  more  openly,  if  he  and  his  adherents 
were  every  Sunday  declared  excommunicate,  and  if  all  places 
to  which  he  came  ceased  from  divine  services  as  long  as  he  re- 
mained there.3*  The  size  of  the  district  affected  by  an  ambu- 
latorium  varied ;  it  might  be  a  diocese,35  a  province,36  a  city,37 
a  village,38  a  town,88  or  a  parish ; 39  often  no  limits  were  speci- 
fied, and  it  was  merely  stated  that  all  places  to  which  the 
offenders  came  should  cease  from  services.40  The  ambulatory 
interdict  was  particularly  serviceable  when  the  offender  himself 
was  migratory,  and  therefore  the  presence  of  such  offenders  as 

s*  Steph.  Tornac.,  Epp. ,  231,  in  Migne,  Pat.  Lat.,  211,  col.  501. 

85  Potth.,  27,  29,  2344. 

86J-L.,  12248,  12705. 

37  (a)  Gesta,  c.  58.  ".  .  .'ad  quamcumque  civitatem,  villam,  vel 
oppidum  devenirent  nullus  ibidem  eis  praesenlibus  divina  officia  celebraret." 
(b)  Marlot,  Hist,  di  Reims,  III,  783.  The  chapter  of  Reims  agrees  to 
suspend  services  if  a  certain  Enguerraud  is  present. 

88  See  above,  chap.  II,  n.  116. 

39Prov.  Cone.  Trev.,  1238,  c.  2,  in  Mansi,  XXIII,  479.  "  .  .  .  per 
totam  illam  parochiam  .  .  .  ." 

40  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  V,  155  (Fotth.,  1813).  (b)  Ibid.,  VIII,  84 
(Potth.,  2530).  "  .  .  .in  omnibus  .  .  .  locis  .  .  .  ."  (c)  Ibid.,  XI, 
26  (Potth.,  3324).  "...  omnia  loca  .  .  .  ." 


go  THE  INTERDICT 

kings  or  nobles,41  murderers  of  prelates,42  marauders  of 
churches,43  crusaders  who  refused  to  keep  their  vows,44  and 
persons  who  attended  tournaments  in  spite  of  ecclesiastical 
prohibitions43  commonly  caused  its  use.  That  this  ambu- 
latorium  was  considered  an  amelioration  of  the  severity  of  the 
interdict  appears  from  the  fact  that  Innocent  III,  in  conse- 
quence of  a  complaint  of  the  Spanish  prelates  about  the  griev- 
ous results  of  the  general  interdict,  partly  relaxed  it  by  mak- 
ing itumbulatory.46  The  ecclesiastics  of  Auxerre  found  it  ex- 
pedient to  do  the  same  thing  during  the  quarrel  of  their  bishop 
with  Peter  Courtenay.4T  The  interdict  on  Denmark,  after 
having  been  generally  unobserved  for  two  years,  was  finally 
changed  to  an  interdict  solely  on  those  parts  in  which  the 
queen  and  her  accomplices  were.48 

A  few  cases  of  ambulatory  interdict  arose  out  of  the  deten- 
tion of  some  person  or  property  in  a  locality  :  Henry  II  of 
England  was  notified  that,  unless  he  yielded  the  daughters  of 
Louis  within  forty  days,  the  province  in  which  they  were  de- 
tained would  be  interdicted.49  The  Archbishop  of  Cologne 
ordered  that,  if  any  ecclesiastical  person  were  detained  in  a 
place  for  more  than  three  days,  the  locality  should  fall  under 
interdict.50  The  captivity  of  Queen  Sybil  and  other  Sicilians 
caused  interdict  to  be  threatened  for  all  dioceses  in  which 
they  were  held  prisoners.51  The  Cistercians  obtained  papal 

41  (a)  Ibid,\I,  63  (Potth.,  1911).     (b)  Ibid.,  VII,  171  (Potth.,  2344). 
(c)  Ibid.,  VIII,  84  (Potth.,  2530).      (d)  Potth. ,8162,  10811.     (e)  Auctor 
Anon,  ad  an.  1261,  in  Ludewig,  IX,    81-82. 

42  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  V,  155;  XI,  26  (Potth.,  1813,  3324). 

43  (a)  J-L.,  15247.     (b)  Cartul.  de  la  Chapelle-aux-Planches,  No.  41. 

44  (a)   Potth.,   816-2.     (b)   Gesta,   c.   84.     ".    .    .  et   quocunque   tales 
[crusaders]  devenerint,  divina  prohibeatis  eis  praesentibusofficia  celebrare." 

45  Gesta,  c.   84.      Cf.  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  IX,  197;  X,  74. (Potth.,  2927. 
3127). 

46  Gesta,  c.  58. 

47  See  Appendix,  case  88.     Interdict  on  Auxerre. 

48  Auctor  Anon.,  in  Ludewig,  IX,  81-82. 

49  J-L.,  12248,  12705. 

50  Quell.  Gesch.  Stadt  Koln,  II,  273. 
"Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  26  (Potth.,  27). 


MODERA  TION  AND  RELAX  A  TION  g  I 

protection  for  themselves  and  their  property  with  this  addi- 
tion :  that  villas  in  which  any  of  their  goods  or  men  were  forci- 
bly kept,  or  in  which  brethren,  fugitive  monks,  or  "  conversi  " 
were  detained  contrary  to  their  own  will,  or  in  which  the 
looters  of  their  property  remained,  should  be  interdicted  until 
the  cause  for  grievance  was  removed,  unless  the  inhabitants 
upon  notice  expelled  the  offenders.52  The  provincial  Council 
of  Trier  determined  that  a  parish  should  be  interdicted  as  long 
as  any  stolen  goods,  the  thieves ,  or  the  purchaser  of  the  goods 
remained  there.53  The  presence  of  stolen  goods  alone  was 
cause  for  an  interdict,  it  appears  from  a  privilege  to  the  Abbey 
of  Basse- Fontaine.54  The  struggle  between  the  Bishop  of 
Auxerre  and  the  Count  of  Nevers  gives  a  very  adequate  idea 
of  the  way  in  which  an  ambulatory  interdict  operated.  It  was 
there  decided  to  observe  the  interdict  in  this  way  :  as  soon  as 
the  count's  arrival  was  known,  and  as  long  as  he  was  present, 
churches  were  closed  and  services  were  celebrated  in  the 
silence  demanded  by  the  interdict ;  when  his  departure  was 
announced  by  the  bell  of  the  public  crier,  services  were  re- 
sumed. "  Certainly  a  profitable  and  salubrious  agreement, 
for  the  Count  could  not  enter  or  leave  his  own  city  without  the 
greatest  commotion,  nor  could  he  stay  very  long  because  of 
the  clamor  of  the  populace  ;  and  the  church  by  her  silence  was 
not  obliged  to  neglect  the  building  and  the  progress  of  souls."55 
An  interdict  ended  with  its  relaxation.  This  was  under 
some  circumstances  automatic,56  but  usually  there  was  a  judicial 
absolution.  If  this  absolution  was  reserved  to  some  one,  that 
authority  alone  could  relax  the  sentence  ;  as  a  special  privi- 
lege to  the  Bishop  of  Oviedo,  Innocent  III  reserved  to  him 

52  See  above,  chap.  II,  n.  116. 

53  Prov.  Cone.  Trev.,  1238,  c.  2,  in  Mansi,  XXIII,  479. 

5*Cartul.  de  1'Abbayede  Basse-Fontaine,  142,  No.  106.  "  Villas  autem 
in  quibus  bona  praedictorum  fratrum  per  violentiam  detenta  fuerint  quandiu 
ibi  sint  interdicti  sententiae  supponatis. " 

55  See  Appendix,  case  88.     Interdict  on  Auxerre. 

*«Kober,  XXII,  42f. 


82  THE  INTERDICT 

the  right  of  raising  the  interdict  in  his  own  diocese,  though 
the  papal  commissioners  removed  it  from  the  other  parts  of 
Leon.57  As  a  rule,  only  the  person  who  laid  the  interdict,  his 
vicar,  his  successor,  or  his  superior 58  could  remove  it.  Who 
was  properly  a  higher  authority  was  open  to  some  question : 
Anacletus  II,  anti-pope,  removed  a  personal  interdict  laid  by 
Honorius  II,59  and  the  anti-pope  Victor  IV  gave  Albert, 
Bishop  of  Verdun,  the  right  of  relaxing  an  interdict  in  the 
church  of  Saint  Michel  (Verdun).60  According  to  law  a 
sentence  must  actually  have  accomplished  the  purpose  for 
which  it  was  laid  before  it  could  be  removed ; 61  usage ,  how- 
ever, demonstrates  that  the  working  of  this  law  was  not  always 
in  keeping  with  the  theory.  If  possible,  the  interdict  was  left 
in  force  until  it  accomplished  its  original  purpose  ;  but  it  was 
not  always  possible  to  secure  the  desired  effects,  and  under 
such  circumstances  there  was  no  option  but  to  take  as  little 
less  as  could  be  obtained.  This  was  notably  the  case  in 
Venice.  The  city  refused  absolutely  to  observe  the  interdict 
or  to  yield  in  the  slightest  degree  ;  the  papacy  had  exhausted 
all  possible  devices  to  secure  its  aims ;  for  the  Roman  pontiff 
the  matter  resolved  itself  into  getting  out  of  the  situation  with 
all  possible  grace.  He  sought  to  induce  Venice  to  do  some- 
thing which  would  afford  him  a  pretext  for  relaxing  the  sen- 
tence;  but  the  Venetians  would  not  so  much  as  pray  him, 
directly  or  indirectly,  to  give  up  his  hostility ;  they  refused  to 
observe  the  interdict  merely  as  a  form  for  even  a  few  days ; 
and  when  peace  was  arranged  they  refused  an  absolution. 
The  mediating  cardinal  desired  to  celebrate  mass  and  give  the 

57  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  125  (Potth.,  131). 

58  (a)  J-L.,  5959.     (b)  Potth.,  10020.     (c)  Hist.  Episc.  Autiss.,  c.  59, 
in  Labbe,  Nova  Bibl.,  I,  481. 

59  J-L.  ,8371  (5924). 

60  J-L.,  14431  (9378). 

61  (a)  Cone.  Galteri  Archiep.  Senon.,  c.   14,  in  Hard.,  VI,  560.     (b) 
Cone.  Lemovicen.,  Sess.  II,  in  Hard.,  VI,  56of.      (c)  Ivo  Carnot. ,  Epp., 
94.     (d)  Gesta,  c.  53,  54.     (e)  Inn.   Ill,  Epp.,  Ill,  14.     (f)  Inn.  Ill, 
Epp.,  XIII,  43.     (g)  See  Appendix,  case  45. 


MODERA  TION  AND  RELAX  A  TION  83 

benediction,  but  it  was  not  agreeable  to  the  Republic;  the 
citizens,  since  they  maintained  that  the  interdict  was  never 
actually  laid,  would  not  hear  of  anything  that  even  suggested 
absolution.  The  cardinal  announced  the  end  of  the  interdict 
in  the  following  words  :  * '  I  rejoyce  very  much  that  this  happy 
day  so  much  desired  by  me  is  come,  wherein  I  declare  unto 
your  Serenitie  that  all  the  Censures  are  taken  away,  as  indeed 
they  are  ;  and  I  take  therein  much  pleasure ,  for  the  benefit 
which  shall  redound  hereby  to  all  Christendome  and  particu- 
larly to  Italy."  On  the  day  the  pope  revoked  his  sentence,  a 
rumor  spread  that  the  cardinal  had  given  absolution  at  a  mass  ; 
this  caused  great  discontent  among  the  people,  who  were 
zealous  that  nothing  should  be  done  to  cast  aspersion  on  their 
cause;  the  rumor,  however,  was  false.  Many  had  supposed 
that  on  this  occasion  there  would  be  bonfires  and  other  signs 
of  joy,  at  the  least  the  ringing  of  bells.  "  Notwithstanding, 
nothing  of  this  was  done,  nor  one  bell  sounded  neither  at 
Venice  nor  in  any  Citie  of  the  State  when  the  News  arrived 
...  to  the  end  that  such  signes  of  joy  might  not  be  inter- 
preted to  signifie  some  absolution  which  they  had  received,62 
or  the  Republique  thereby  conceived  to  have  been  formerly  in 
a  fault."  The  pope  drew  off  entirely  beaten,  not  even  able 
to  save  appearances. 

But  the  experience  was  unique,  and  usually  the  church  was 
able  to  make  conditions  for  the  relaxation.63  The  particulars 
of  these  conditions  varied  with  circumstances  \  among  the 
common  stipulations  were,  first,  the  promise  to  make  repara- 
tion for  all  harm  done  the  church  during  the  time  in  which 
the  sentence  was  operative ; 64  second,  to  give  security  that  the 
terms  would  be  fulfilled  ;65  and  third,  that  the  offender  obey 

62Sarpi,  Quarrels  of  Paul  V,  414-417,  424-425,  427-428. 
MMun.  Acad.  Oxon.  (7?.  Ser.),  igoi. 

64  See  above,  chap.  Ill,  n.  119. 

65  (a)   Inn.    Ill,  Epp.,   I,   35  (Potth.,   31).      "...  cautione  recepta 
.  .  ."     (b)  Inn.  Ill,    Epp.,  I,  461   (Potth.,  473).     (c)  Potth.,  3421. 
(d)    Inn.    Ill,    Epp.,   XII,    156    (Potth.,    3885).     (e)    Ibid.,   XV,    12 
(Potth.,  4406).     (f)  Ibid.,  XVI,  98  (Potth.,  4798). 


84  THE  INTERDICT 

the  authorities  in  regard  to  the  matters  under  dispute.66  Not 
infrequently  it  was  stipulated  that  certain  of  the  conditions  of 
peace  be  actually  fulfilled  before  the  interdict  was  relaxed.67 
The  pope  commanded  his  agents  to  see  that  everything  expedi- 
ent was  done  before  the  sentence  was  removed,68  which  was 
nothing  more  than  the  good  business  principle  of  giving  no 
receipt  before  having  value  received.  Not  always,  however, 
was  it  easy  to  come  to  terms,  or  to  have  all  the  conditions 
clearly  stated,  much  less  fulfilled ;  under  such  circumstances  a 
part  of  the  terms  of  peace  were  left  to  be  determined  after  re- 
laxation.69 In  England,  the  fact  that  some  of  the  details  of 
the  peace  were  not  understood  did  not  defer  the  removal  of 
the  interdict.70  No  definite  form  of  absolution  seems  to  have 
developed  ;  each  formula  of  relaxation  was  drawn  to  fit  its  spe- 
cial case.  Even  less  can  be  said  of  the  ceremonies  of  relaxation. 
At  the  removal  of  the  interdict  and  excommunication  from 
Roger,  Count  of  Pamiers,  the  count  on  his  knees,  before  the 
Bishop  of  Pamiers,  prayed  with  joined  hands  for  absolution, 
which  was  accorded.21  Relaxations  of  interdicts  bring  out 
several  matters  of  value  :  the  joy  displayed  by  the  people  on 
such  occasions  indicates  that  the  interdict  was  oppressive ; n 
a  special  aid  was  levied  for  its  removal  in  England ; 73  the  re- 
laxation of  interdict  was  so  much  desired  that  letters  of  re- 

66  (a)  T-L.,  9169  (6373).     Eugene  III  reproved  the  Bishop  of  Verona  for 
removing  an  interdict  without  first  having  secured  the  restoration  of  the 
canons'  property,  and  ordered  him  to  secure  the  restoration,      (b)   Inn. 
Ill,   Epp. ,  III,   16  (Potth.,   1150).      Innocent  reproved  Octavian  for  dis- 
regarding his  instructions,   "  .  in    qua       .    .  continetur,  quod    prae- 
missis  omnibus  quae  ante  relaxandam  sententiam   interdict!  mandavimus 
praemittenda,  post  modum  ipsam  sententiam  relaxares." 

67  Potth.,  3881. 

68 Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XV,  108  (Potth.,  4531). 

69  Ibid.,  XV,  234  (Potth.,  4393). 

70  Hist.  Gen.  de  Languedoc,  IX,  190-192,  n. 

71  (a)   Hist.  Guerre  des  Albig.,  c.    17,  in  Rec.,  XIX,   131.     "  Et  adonc 
s'£s  levada  dins  ladita  villa  una  tala  joya  et  alegretat,  que  jamay  tala  non 
fouc  vista. "     (b)  Matt.  Par.,  Hist.  Angl.  ad  an.  1213,  in  Rec, ,  XVII,  714. 

72  Rot.  Claus.,  208,  213. 

73  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XVI,  52  (Potth.,  4732), 


MOD  ERA  TION  AND  RELAX  A  T1ON  85 

moval  were  forged.  In  Portugal  a  relaxation  was  stopped  by 
the  king's  opponents  on  the  plea  that  the  exhibited  papal 
letters  of  absolution  were  fraudulent.74  That  the  papal  com- 
missioners were  induced  by  this  assertion  to  postpone  action 
until  they  could  investigate  seems  to  give  ground  for  crediting 
the  accusation.  In  the  preceding  year,  also,  the  pope  had 
instituted  an  inquiry  about  certain  forged  letters  granting 
papal  absolution  to  Stephen,  Count  of  Burgundy,  from  an  ex- 
communication and  interdict  laid  by  the  Archbishop  of  Be- 
sancon.74  Before  dismissing  the  subject,  let  it  be  noted  that 
the  abuse  of  relaxations,  exemplified  by  the  clergy  of  Reims 
in  demanding  a  sum  of  money  before  removing  the  interdict, 
was  opposed  by  the  papacy,  and  that  Innocent  IV  in  this  in- 
stance administered  a  strong  rebuke.75  On  the  whole,  the  im- 
pression given  by  the  silence  of  the  sources  is  that  the  misuse 
of  relaxation  was  not  common. 

74  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XV,  n  (Potth.,  4408). 

75  Arch,  de  Reims,  II,  i,  659.     Cf.  Raumer,  Gesch.  d.  Hohenst.,  VI,  162. 


APPENDIX. 

INTERDICTS  FROM  1198  TO  1216. 

THE  author  realizes  that  any  arrangement  of  eighty-five 
miscellaneous  cases  of  interdict  is  likely  to  be  bad.  A 
strictly  chronological  list  separates  interdicts  that  are  closely 
related  in  cause  if  not  in  time ;  a  chronological  arrangement 
by  countries  has  not  even  the  virtues  of  a  consecutive  list ;  a 
topical  arrangement  is  not  feasible  because  of  the  number  of 
unconnected  topics.  The  plan  that  seemed  open  to  fewest 
objections  is  to  arrange  all  manifestations  of  the  interdict  from 
the  year  1198  to  the  year  1216  in  three  groups:  threats  of 
interdict,  possible  cases,  and  actual  cases  of  interdict.  Within 
each  group  the  order  is  a  combination  of  chronological  and 
topical  arrangement.  Whenever  the  sources  furnished  suffi- 
ciently interesting  material,  the  case  was  narrated. 

THREATS. 

1  Hungary,  1198? 

2  Portugal  and  Castile,  1198. 2 

3  Leon  and  Castile,  1198. * 

4  Leon,  1212.^ 

5  Cyprus,  February,  1200. 5 

6  Violators  of  crusaders'1  vows,  1201.     Ambulatory? 

7  Italian  Cities,  June,  1198. 

At  a  convention  of  Italian  bishops  held  at  Verona,  under 

xlnn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  271  (Potth.,  285). 

2  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  249  (Potth.,  263). 

9 Ibid.,  92  (Potth.,  81). 

*I6td.,  Epp.,  XV,  15  (Potth.,  4417). 

5Theiner,  Vet.  Man.  Slav.  Merid.,  I,  47,  No.  5  (Potth.,  956). 

6Hoveden,  Chron.  (R.  Ser.},  IV,  165. 

(86) 


APPENDIX  87 

the  chairmanship  of  the  legate  Gregory,  it  was  decreed  that 
heretics  should  not  be  allowed  to  hold  offices  or  vote  for  city 
officials,  and  that  all  podestas,  consuls,  and  councils  were  to 
take  oath  to  enforce  this  rule.  The  convention  instructed  the 
Archdeacon  of  Milan,  who  was  sent  to  administer  the  oath  to 
the  cities,  to  use  excommunication  and  interdict  against  the 
lands  of  any  who  refused  to  swear.  Innocent  confirmed  these 
instructions.7 

8  Brindisi,  Gallipoli,  Otranto,  Sari,  1203. 

There  is  probably  no  better  example  of  the  use  of  threat  of 
interdict  for  political  purposes,  than  the  one  which  follows. 
In  the  course  of  the  struggle  between  the  papacy  and  the 
HohenstaufTen  in  southern  Italy,  Innocent  found  himself  com- 
pelled to  call  in  French  aid  in  the  person  of  Walter  of  Brienne. 
From  the  first  Count  Walter  found  adherents,  but  in  the 
vicissitudes  of  the  struggle  Brindisi,  Gallipoli,  and  Otranto 
rebelled  against  him  and  occupied  one  of  his  castles,  thereby 
causing  some  loss  of  life.  About  October,  1203,  orders  came 
from  the  curia  to  the  prelates  and  people  of  these  cities  com- 
manding them  under  pain  of  interdict  to  return  to  their 
allegiance  within  a  month.  These  orders  were  apparently  not 
effective ;  for  in  December  of  the  same  year  the  cities  above 
mentioned,  with  the  addition  of  Bari,  were  threatened  with 
interdict  unless  they  returned  to  their  allegiance  within  a 
month.  There  is  no  further  trace  of  this  interdict.8 

9  Orvieto ,  July ,  1209. 

The  citizens  of  Orvieto  were  guilty  of  numerous  offences ; 
the  one  which  made  their  insolence  no  longer  tolerable  was 
the  seizure  of  some  of  the  cattle  of  Aquapendente.  Innocent 
gave  them  fifteen  days  within  which  to  return  the  stolen  cattle  ; 
if  they  failed  to  do  so,  their  officials  were  to  be  excommunicated 
and  the  city  put  under  interdict.9 

7  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  298  (Potth.,  286). 

8Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  191,  192  (Potth.,  2064,  2065). 

9  Ibid.,  XII,  80  (Potth.,  3777). 


88  THE  INTERDICT 

10  Bologna,  June,  1211.™ 

11  Lands  of  Philip  in  Rouen,  1198. 

About  1198  the  Archbishop  of  Rouen  and  the  King  of 
France  disagreed  regarding  the  cession  of  Andelay  to  Richard 
of  England.  The  king  appealed  to  Rome  to  prevent  any 
action  prejudicial  to  him  from  being  taken.  In  spite  of  this 
the  archbishop  disturbed  him  and  threatened  to  subject  what- 
ever lands  he  possessed  in  the  diocese  of  Rouen  to  interdict. 
The  pope  forbade  the  archbishop  to  molest  the  king  there- 
after, or  to  presume  to  lay  an  interdict  on  his  lands ;  and 
certain  abbots  were  instructed  to  see  that  any  sentence  laid  by 
the  archbishop  contrary  to  law  was  declared  null,  and  to  arbi- 
trate the  matter  fairly,  without  respect  of  persons.11 

12  Lands  of  the  Count  of  Nevers ,  1199. 

Baldwin,  Count  of  Flanders,  and  the  Count  of  Nevers  had 
made  an  agreement  under  oath  in  regard  to  certain  marriages. 
A  part  of  the  agreement  was  that,  if  either  of  the  parties  failed 
or  refused  to  carry  out  his  part  of  the  contract,  he  was  to  be 
forced  to  do  so  by  the  King  of  France,  by  the  Archbishops  of 
Reims  and  Sens,  or  by  the  Bishops  of  Auxerre  and  Nevers,  by 
means  of  excommunication  of  person  and  interdict  of  lands. 
Peter,  Count  of  Nevers,  failed  to  perform  his  part  of  the 
agreement.  The  pope  instructed  the  above-mentioned  pre- 
lates to  force  Peter  to  keep  his  oath.  The  count  was  notified 
of  the  order,  and  at  the  same  time  a  bull  requested  the  King 
of  France  not  to  hinder  the  count  from  keeping  his  oath. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  a  sentence  was  issued.12 

13  England  and  France,  1198. 

The  ardent  desire  of  Innocent  to  organize  a  crusade  was 
balked  by  the  endless  wars  between  England  and  France. 

™Ibid.,  XIV,  79  (Potth.,  4264). 

11  (a)  Wendover,  Plor.  Hist,  ad  an.  1197  (R.  Ser.,  I,  267).  (b)  Inn. 
Ill,  Epp.  I,  108  (Potth.,  107).  (c)  Ibid.,  I,  131  (Potth.,  141). 

"(a)  Rec.,  XIX,  375  (Potth.,  674).  (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  II,  44 
(Potth.,  675). 


APPENDIX  89 

For  this  reason,  on  August  13,  1198,  he  addressed  letters  to 
the  kings  of  these  two  countries,  in  which  he  ordered  them  to 
make  peace,  or  at  least  a  truce  for  five  years,  within  two 
months  after  receiving  his  letters,  and  to  keep  inviolate  the 
agreement  they  should  make.  Peter  of  Capua  was  sent  to 
promote  these  matters.  If,  upon  warning  of  the  legate,  they 
failed  humbly  to  receive  and  fulfill  the  papal  mandate  within 
the  time  fixed,  their  entire  lands  were  to  be  placed  under  in- 
terdict, so  severe  that  no  divine  office  except  baptism  of  in- 
fants and  penance  of  the  dying  could  be  celebrated.  All 
prelates  of  both  realms  were  warned  to  observe  the  interdict, 
should  it  be  issued ;  even  the  Templars  and  the  Hospitalers 
were  to  be  affected.  It  was  further  ordained  that,  if  any  cleric 
whatsoever  dared  to  perform  any  ministration  for  the  kings 
after  the  interdict  was  laid,  he  risked  the  loss  of  his  orders  and 
his  benefice.  The  agreement  demanded  by  the  pope  was 
made.  Coggeshall  states  that  the  kings  did  not  make  a  peace, 
but  entered  into  a  five-year  truce  about  the  time  of  Lent 
(1199).  This  record  is  confirmed  by  another  which  reports 
that  a  verbal  truce  to  hold  for  five  years  was  entered  into  in 
1199,  but  was  hardly  kept  until  Easter.  Wendover  relates 
that  the  kings  met  and  swore  to  keep  truce  for  five  years. 
Philip,  however,  soon  plotted  with  John  against  Richard, 
thereby  violating  the  spirit  of  the  truce,  and  war  was  con- 
tinued. But  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  sentence  threat- 
ened for  the  violation  of  the  truce  was  ever  issued.13 
14  England,  1198. 

Richard  was  threatened  with  interdict  if,  upon  seeing  the 

13  (a)  Wendover,  Flor.  Hist,  ad  an.  1198  (A\  Ser.},  I,  28of.  States 
that  the  pope  took  this  action  at  Philip's  request,  (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I, 
355  (Potth.,  351),  and  ibid.,  II,  57  (Potth.,  682).  (c)  Rad.  Coggesh.,  in 
Rec.)  XVIII,  84.  (d)  Sigeb.,  Contin.  Acquic.,  ad  an.  1199,  in  MGSS., 
VI,  435.  (e)  See  also  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  163.  (f)  The  threat  of  inter- 
diet  ( 1203)  mentioned  by  Luchaire,  Les  Koyautes  Vassales  du  S.-Sitge,  p. 
189,  as  a  local  interdict  seems  to  me  to  have  been  a  personal  interdict :  "  Si 
quis  autem  contrarium  praesumpserit  excom.  se  noverit  sent,  innodatum  et 
totam  familiam  suam  suppositam  interdicto."  Inn.,  Epp.,  VI,  164  (Potth., 
2010). 


go  THE  INTERDICT 

letters  of   the  pope,  he   failed  to  remove   the   Archbishop, 
Hubert  Walter,  from  the  justiciarship.14 

15  York  and  England,  1199. 

The  disputes  of  Geoffrey,  Archbishop  of  York,  with  his 
brothers,  Richard  and  John,  were  the  cause  of  two  threats  of 
interdict;  one  in  1199,  the  other  in  1207.  In  1196  Richard 
had  disseized  Geoffrey  of  his  ecclesiastical  estates  and  temporal 
functions.  In  spite  of  the  prelate's  efforts,  and  of  the  papal 
warnings,  the  king  did  not  restore  the  properties.  With  the 
accession  of  the  new  pontiff,  Innocent,  Geoffrey's  cause  was 
strengthened.  On  April  28,  1199,  the  pope  ordered  Richard 
to  restore  the  properties  of  the  archbishop  on  pain  of  interdict 
upon  the  province  of  York,  which  would  be  followed  by  an 
interdict  on  all  England,  if  the  sentence  on  York  did  not 
bring  him  to  submission.  Before  the  bull  reached  its  destina- 
tion Richard  died,  and  John  soon  after  came  to  an  agreement 
with  Geoffrey.15 

1 6  York,  1207. 

When  John,  in  1207,  proposed  to  levy  a  tax  of  a  thirteenth 
on  all  chattels  of  the  realm,  his  obstreperous  brother,  Geoffrey, 
headed  the  opposition.  He  forbade  his  clergy  to  pay  the 
tax,  declared  all  collectors  excommunicated,  and  secretly  left  ^ 
for  the  continent.  His  property  was  seized  by  the  king. 
The  pope  vigorously  interfered  in  Geoffrey's  behalf.  In  De- 
cember, 1207,  he  wrote  to  the  Bishops  of  Worcester,  Ely,  and 
Hereford,  instructing  them  to  urge  the  king  to  repair  the 
harm  done  the  archbishop;  and,  to  give  point  to  their  en- 
treaties, the  pope  permitted  them  to  use  interdict  against  the 
province  of  York,  if  the  king  proved  obstinate.  These  com- 
missioners did  nothing;  for  early  in  the  following  year  the 
quarrel  over  the  archbishopric  of  Canterbury  came  to  a  head 
and  an  interdict  was  laid  on  the  whole  of  England.  But 

14  (a)  Wendover,  Flor.   Hist.,   (JR.  Ser.},  I,   276  (Potth.,  552).     (b) 
Diet.  Natl.  Biog.,  "  Hubert  Walter." 

15  (a)   Inn.   Ill,  Epp.,   II,   57,  59  (Potth.,  682,  683).     (b)   Stubbs, 
Preface  to  Hoveden  (R.  Ser.},  IV,  Ixix-lxxv. 


APPENDIX  gl 

Innocent  did  not  merge  the  affairs  of  York  with  those  of  Eng- 
land. In  May,  1208,  a  bull  was  issued  from  Rome  addressed 
to  the  Bishops  of  London  and  Rochester  and  to  the  Dean  of 
Lincoln,  informing  them  of  the  situation  in  York,  of  the  in- 
structions previously  given,  and  commissioning  them  to  per- 
suade the  king  to  yield  within  three  months.  Should  John 
refuse  to  do  so,  the  bishops  were  to  lay  an  interdict  on  the 
province  of  York  and  were  to  enforce  its  observance  until 
satisfaction  was  forthcoming.  Nothing  came  of  this  interdict 
because  all  the  bishops  except  the  Bishop  of  Winchester  were 
obliged  to  leave  England  on  account  of  the  great  interdict. 
Geoffrey  never  returned  to  England ;  he  died  in  Normandy 
in  I2i2.16 
17  Normandy,  1203. 

King  John  retained  some  of  the  property  of  the  bishopric  of 
Se"ez  and  refused  to  acknowledge  Silvester  as  the  Bishop  of 
Se"ez,  because  he  had  been  consecrated  by  the  Archbishop  of 
Sens,  when  the  right  of  consecration  belonged  to  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Rouen.  On  May  25  the  pope  ordered  the  king  to 
receive  the  bishop  and  restore  his  properties  within  a  month, 
under  pain  of  interdict  on  that  part  of  Normandy  subject  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Archbishop  of  Rouen ;  this  interdict 
was  to  be  observed  until  the  king  came  to  terms.  John  had 
not  submitted  in  December  of  1203,  for  at  that  time  he 
remonstrated  with  the  Archbishop  of  Sens  for  presuming  to 
consecrate  Silvester,  and  stated  that  he  had  appealed  to  the 
pope  and  put  himself  and  his  lands  under  papal  protection, 
and  that  the  archbishop  should  therefore  ordain  nothing 
against  him  or  his  realm.  This  shows  that  the  sentence  had 
not  been  laid,  and  no  doubt  John  accepted  Innocent's  de- 
cision in  the  matter,  for  Silvester  became  Bishop  of  Se"ez.1T 

16  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XI,  87  (Potth.,  3418),  etc.     (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp., 
X,   172  (Potth.,  3248).     (c)    Wendover,  Flor.  Hist,   ad   an.    1207   (R. 
Ser.},  II,  35. 

17  (a)  Rot.  Pat.,  I,  16,  August  12.      (b)  Raynald.,  Annal.,  1203,  Ixi. 
(c)  Inn.   Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  73  (Potth.,   1919).     (d)  Rot.  Pat.,  I,  22b,  De- 
cember 19. 


92  THE  INTERDICT 

18  Dublin,  1203-1203. 

In  1197,  the  Archbishop  of  Dublin  was  exiled  and  his 
property  was  confiscated  by  the  crown.  The  pope  urged  and 
pleaded  in  vain.  In  1203,  he  proceeded  to  more  rigorous 
measures ;  he  commanded  the  king  to  recall  the  prelate  and 
restore  his  property;  and  he  instructed  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  and  the  Bishop  of  Ely  that,  if  John  failed  to  obey 
within  a  month  after  receiving  the  papal  order,  they  should 
interdict  whatever  diocese  the  king  chanced  to  enter,  as  long 
as  he  tarried  therein.  The  pontiff  assured  the  king  that,  if 
these  measures  did  not  soften  the  regal  will,  he  should  adopt 
severer  measures.  The  prelates  disregarded  their  orders  and 
nothing  came  of  the  threat,  except  that  the  English  prelates 
were  roundly  rated  for  their  disobedience.  A  year  and  a  half 
later  John  again  received  a  communication  from  Rome ,  and 
this  time  he  was  given  two  months  for  reflection ;  if  his  medi- 
tations meanwhile  had  not  brought  him  to  give  satisfaction  to 
the  Archbishop  of  Dublin,  an  ambulatory  interdict  was  to 
make  John's  itinerary  frcm  diocese  to  diocese  its  own;  if  this 
proved  inadequate,  the  whole  province  of  Dublin  was  to  be 
interdicted.  The  pope  added  that  he  should  remain  firm  in 
the  defense  of  the  church.  In  1205  the  king  and  the  arch- 
bishop came  to  an  agreement,  and  thus  ended  the  necessity  for 
the  interdict.18 

19  Parts  of  Germany,  1108. 

During  the  pontificate  of  Celestin  III  various  Sicilians  had 
been  carried  as  captives  across  the  Alps  to  German  lands ; 
among  these  were  Queen  Sybil  and  the  Archbishop  of  Salerno. 
They  were  detained  by  Philip  of  Suabia  or  his  minions.  Im- 
mediately after  his  accession,  Innocent  took  up  the  cause  of 
the  captives.  He  ordered  "Wicel  de  Berc",who  held  the 
archbishop,  to  free  him  under  pain  of  excommunication  and 
interdict.  If  he  refused,  he  was  to  be  deprived  of  all  his 

18  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VII,  171  (Potth.,  2344).  (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp ., 
VI,  63'(Potth.,  IQIIJ.  (c)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  64  (Potth.,  1910).  (d) 
Cf.  Diet.  Nail.  £iog.,  "John  Comyn". 


APPENDIX  Q3 

church  benefices  and  all  his  land ;  and  the  whole  diocese  in 
which  the  captive  was,  or  to  which  he  was  transferred,  was  to 
be  interdicted.  The  Bishop  of  Sutri  and  the  Abbot  of  St. 
Anastasius  were  commissioned  to  carry  out  his  orders,  and 
were  empowered  to  secure  the  release  of  Sybil,  her  son  and 
her  daughter,  and  other  Sicilians  by  similar  measures.  The 
German  clergy  were  instructed  to  give  full  obedience  to  their 
acts;  and  the  princes  were  warned  that,  unless  they  secured 
the  release  of  the  prisoners,  the  whole  of  Germany  would  be 
interdicted.  The  outcome  of  the  matter  was  an  agreement 
between  Duke  Philip  and  the  papal  agent,  by  which  the 
Archbishop  of  Salerno  was  surrendered.  The  other  captives 
escaped  to  France ;  it  is  possible  that  their  flight  was  made 
easy,  because  of  the  pressure  exerted  by  Rome.19 

20  Lands  of  supporters  of  the  Bishop  of  Hildesheim,  1200. 

Conrad,  the  Bishop  of  Hildesheim,  transferred  himself  with- 
out papal  authority  to  the  see  of  Wurzburg.  In  spite  of  sus- 
pension and  excommunication,  he  opposed  the  person  prop- 
erly elected.  He  was  supported  by  the  Counts  Adolph, 
Herman,  and  Henry  of  Harzburg,  Frederick  of  Lille  and  the 
ministerials  of  his  church,  namely  Lupold  and  "Escherte", 
and  by  Ugo  the  Vicar.  On  this  account  the  pope  instructed 
three  German  clerics  to  investigate  the  matter.  If  things  were 
found  to  be  as  reported  to  him  and  if  the  offenders  would  not 
yield,  these  prelates  were  to  excommunicate  them  and  lay  an 
interdict  on  their  lands  and  on  every  place  to  which  they 
should  come.  These  orders  were  given  February  2,  and  were 
to  remain  in  force  until  the  offenders  submitted.  Conrad 
yielded  to  the  pope  shortly  after  (April,  1200),  and  the  sen- 
tence against  his  supporters  had  no  further  purpose.20 

19  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp  ,  I,  24,  26  (Potth.,  29,  27).     (b)  Gesta,  c.  22, 
23,    26.      (c)    Robt.    Altissiod.,    in    Rec.,    XVIII,    264.      (d)    Minorita 
Florent.,in  B6hmer,/bw/<fj,IV,6i5.    (e)  Winkelmann, />/«'/.  von  Schwaben, 
I,  80,  n.  4. 

20  (a)    Inn.    Ill,    Epp.,    I,    335,    574;    II,    54,   201,   204,   278,   288. 
(Potth.,  944).     (b)    Winkelmann,  Phil.   v.  Schivaben,   I,   513,  Erlauter- 
ungen,  VIII. 


94  THE  INTERDICT 

21  Lands  of  Hermann  of  Thuringia ,  1200. 

Hermann,  Landgrave  of  Thuringia,  had  given  an  oath  of 
homage  to  Otto  of  Brunswick ;  afterwards  he  refused  to  keep 
it  and  allied  himself  with  Philip  of  Suabia.  Innocent,  there- 
fore, instructed  the  Archbishop  of  Mainz  to  urge  the  Land- 
grave to  keep  his  oath,  and,  if  he  refused,  to  force  him,  by 
papal  excommunication  and  by  interdict  of  his  lands,  to  return 
to  his  allegiance,  or  at  least  to  restore  what  Otto  had  paid  him 
for  it.  It  may  have  been,  as  Otto  believed,  that  this  threat 
caused  the  vacillating  Hermann  to  grow  cool  in  the  cause  of 
Philip  and  ultimately  to  desert  him  entirely.  However,  the 
fear  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  had  not  impressed  Hermann 
deeply  enough  to  keep  him  from  yielding  to  Philip's  military 
force.21 

22  Lands  of  Louis  of  Bavaria  and  others. 
An  interdict  was  authorized  in  i2oi.22 

23  Lands  of  the  Count  of  Namur,  1204.. 

At  the  orders  of  John,  Bishop  of  Cambrai,  a  structure  put 
up  by  Philip  of  Namur  was  razed  to  the  ground.  Philip,  aided 
by  the  nobles  of  his  locality,  retaliated  with  an  armed  force, 
and  carried  devastation  into  the  bishop's  possessions.  He 
oppressed  the  prelate  so  severely  as  to  make  his  ruin  immi- 
nent. Bishop  John  put  the  count  and  his  supporters  under 
excommunication,  but  to  no  purpose;  he  therefore  appealed 
to  Rome.  April  10,  Innocent  republished  the  excommunica- 
tion and  ordered  that  the  lands  of  the  Count  of  Namur  and 
his  adherents  be  interdicted,  and  that  an  ambulatory  interdict 

21  (a)  Inn.  Opp.,  Ill,  1023,  No.  27  (Potth.,  1197).     (b)  Reg.  de  negotio 
imp.,    in  Migne,  Pat.  Lat.,  216,  col.   1108,  No.   106.     Otto    writes  the 
pope:  "  .    .    .  Langravium  Thuringiae  .    .      per potentiam  non  habuimus, 
sed  per  magnam  vestram  sollicitudinem  et  frequentem."     (c)  Chron.  Mont. 
Sereni,  MGSS.,  XXIII,  p.  170.     "...  lantgravius  .    .    .  hortatu  papae 
ad  Ottonem  rediit  secumque  regem  Bohemiae   a    Philippo    deficere    per- 
suasit."     (d)  Winkelmann,  Phil.  v.  Schwaben,  I,  328,  and  note  2. 

22  Meiller,  Reg.  d.  Sahb.  Erzbisch,,  170,  No.  7  (Potth.,  1250). 


APPENDIX  95 

pursue  the  count,  if  within  one  month  the  offenders  had  not 
yielded.'3 

24  Lands  of  Philip  of  Suabia,  120 j. 

When  Innocent  deposed  the  Archbishop  of  Mainz,  Philip  of 
Suabia  supported  the  archbishop  so  vigorously  that  he  was 
threatened  with  interdict.  The  Patriarch  of  Aquileia  and 
Peter,  Abbot  of  Neuburg,  were  instructed  to  interdict  Philip's 
lands  and  all  places  to  which  he  should  come,  unless  he  with- 
drew his  favor  from  Lupold,  the  Archbishop,  within  a  month 
after  being  warned.*4 

25  Lands  of  Henry,  Count  Palatine,  1205.^ 

26  Lands  of  Henry,  Duke  of  Brabant,  1205.™ 

27  Lands  of  Leopold  of  Austria,  1209. 

Leopold,  Duke  of  Austria,  had  seized  some  of  the  posses- 
sions of  the  Bishop  of  Bamberg  because  of  the  bishop's  sup- 
posed connivance  at  the  murder  of  Philip  of  Suabia.  The 
pope  decided  to  investigate  the  accusation,  but  before  taking 
up  the  case  he  desired  that  the  accused  prelate's  affairs  and 
possessions  be  in  the  condition  in  which  they  were  prior  to 
Philip's  murder.  The  Archbishop  of  Salzburg  was  delegated 
to  secure  a  restoration  of  the  property  sequestrated  by  the 
Duke  of  Austria ;  and,  if  such  extreme  measures  should  be 
found  necessary,  he  was  ordered  to  use  excommunication  upon 
his  person  and  interdict  upon  his  lands ;  the  right  of  appeal 
was  denied.  In  order  to  restore  all  the  affairs  of  the  accused 
bishop  to  their  former  status,  the  pope  ordered  the  Archbishop 
of  Mainz,  the  Bishop  of  Wtirzbnrg,  and  the  Abbot  of  Fulda  to 

"(a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VII,  48  (Potth.,  2172).  (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp., 
VII,  45  (Potth.,  2176). 

24 /&</.,  VIII,  84  (Potth.,  2530).  Cf.  Winkelmann,  Phil.  v.  Schwaben, 
I,  378f. 

25  (a)  Inn.  Opp.,  Ill,  1124,  No.  120  (Potth.,  2489).  (b)  Ibid.,  No. 
121  (Potth.,  2490).  (c)  Vnnkelmann,  Phil.  v.  Schwaben,  I,  365. 

26(a)  Inn.  Opp.,  Ill,  1124,  No.  121  (Potth.,  2490).  (b)  Winkel- 
mann, Phil.  v.  Sch-waben,  I,  365. 


96  THE  INTERDICT 

attend  to  this  restitution  and  interdict  the  lands  of  any  who 
opposed  it.2? 

CASES  IN  WHICH  IT  IS  PROBABLE   THAT    AN  INTERDICT  WAS  LAID. 

28  Invaders  of  the  Monastery  of  St.  Victor  (Marseilles)  ,  1198.™ 

29  Antioch,  1207-1208.™ 

30  "  Spigant",  1200.™ 

31  Diocese  of  Osimo,  about  12  ii.*1 

32  Rouen,  about  June,  np8. 

In  June,  1198,  the  pope  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Rouen,  from  which  it  appears  that  the  archbishop 
had  issued  a  sentence  of  excommunication  and  interdict 
against  certain  clerks  and  laymen  of  his  diocese,  and  that 
these  were  contumaciously  refusing  obedience.  It  was  there- 
fore ordered  that  the  sentence  should  continue  in  force  until 
satisfaction  was  made,  and  that  any  one  who  violated  these 
orders  should  be  smitten  by  canonical  penalties.  On  the 
same  day,  in  another  letter,  in  compliance  with  the  request  of 
the  prelate ,  the  pope  ordered  that  all  persons  subject  to  the 
diocesan  law  of  the  archbishop  should  strictly  observe  any 
sentence  he  might  issue,  unless  they  could  show  special  privi- 
lege or  other  legitimate  cause  for  not  doing  so.32  The  first  of 
these  letters  leaves  some  doubt  as  to  the  kind  of  interdict 
meant;  if  excommunication  applied  to  all  "  clerks  and  lay- 
men", then  the  interdict  was  necessarily  local,  as  a  personal 
interdict  would  under  such  circumstances  be  meaningless. 
The  situation  would  then  be  that  all  clerks  and  laymen  were 

27  (a)  Meiller,  Reg.  d.  Salzb.  ErzHsch.,  170,  No.  7  (Potth.,  1250).     This 
reference  is  to  a  previous  episode  at  Salzburg  (1201)  in  which  there  is  a 
suggestion  that  an  interdict  was  threatened,      (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XII,  118, 
119,  120  (Potth.,  3841,  3842,  3843).     (c)  Chron.  Mont.  Sereni,  MGSS., 
XXIII,  p.  175. 

28  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  268  (Potth.,  282). 

29  (a)  Ibid.,  XI,  9  (Potth.,  3314).     (b)  Cf.  Potth.,  1689. 
30 Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XII,  144  (Potth.,  3844). 

31  Ibia.,  XIV,  20  (Potth.,  4203). 

82  (a)  Ibid.,  I,  266  (Potth.,  277).     (b)  Ibid.,  265  (Potth.,  276), 


APPENDIX  97 

under  excommunication  and  local  interdict.  Besides,  the 
interdict,  if  personal,  could  not  have  affected  all  the  clerks 
and  laymen,  for  in  that  case  the  excommunication  would  have 
been  entirely  superfluous ;  and  the  only  way  to  reconcile  the 
matter  would  be  to  regard  some  of  the  disciplined  as  excom- 
municated, and  others  as  personally  interdicted. 

As  far  as  the  papal  letters  from  which  these  facts  are  drawn 
are  concerned,  either  view  is  justifiable.  There  are,  however, 
several  other  papal  letters  which  add  some  light  and  some 
complication.  On  June  3,  the  pope  wrote  a  letter  "Uni- 
verso  populo  Rothomagensi ' ' ,  notifying  them  of  the  excom- 
munication of  the  people  of  Rouen.  On  the  following  day 
two  letters  were  issued ;  one  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury 
and  his  suffragan  bishops,  and  another  to  the  Archbishop  of 
Rouen  and  his  suffragan  bishops,  instructing  them  to  pub- 
lish in  their  dioceses  the  sentence  of  excommunication  issued 
against  the  burgesses  of  Rouen.33  According  to  their  term- 
inology these  letters  have  to  do  with  a  case  of  excommunica- 
tion. If  so,  it  is  not  an  ordinary  excommunication  ;  if  one  at 
all,  it  affects  the  citizens  of  a  whole  city,  which  makes  it  pos- 
sible to  see  in  it  an  interdict.  And  this  is  supported  by  the 
letter  of  June  u,  which,  as  has  been  said,  mentions  an  inter- 
dict already  laid  against  certain  clerks  and  laymen  of  the 
diocese. 

The  objections  to  identifying  the  "  excommunication 
against  the  burgesses  of  Rouen ' '  with  the  *  excommunication 
and  interdict  of  certain  clerks  and  laymen  of  the  diocese  ' '  are 
obvious  :  first,  the  "  burgesses  of  Rouen  "  and  "  clerks  and  lay- 
men of  the  diocese  "  cannot  mean  the  same  persons.  That 
the  burgesses  are  laymen  of  the  diocese  is  undeniable ,  but  what 
becomes  of  the  clerks?  The  answer  to  this  lies  in  the  pur- 
pose of  the  earlier  letters ;  one  of  these  is  directed  to  the  peo- 
ple of  Rouen  and  notified  them  of  the  sentence  and  could 
have  no  object  in  mentioning  the  clerks,  the  other  two  were 

ss  Arch,  du  depart,  de  la  Seine-Inferieure,  Invent,  somm.^  VI,  3596, 


pg  THE  INTERDICT 

directed  to  prelates  and  instructed  them  to  publish  the  sen- 
tence against  the  citizens  of  Rouen,  and  there  was  no  need  of 
mentioning  clerks  in  those  letters,  since  the  sentence  against 
them  needed  no  publication.  Second,  if  the  laymen  were 
under  interdict,  and  the  clerks  under  excommunication,  by 
what  argument  can  any  one  justify  a  deliberate  interpretation 
of  the  excommunication  of  the  burgesses  to  mean  a  local  in- 
terdict? In  answer  to  this  it  may  be  said  that  the  word  ex- 
communication is  frequently  used,  even  in  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury, when  it  undoubtedly  refers  to  local  interdict.34  The 
conclusion  drawn  from  the  letters  above  cited  is  that  the  city 
of  Rouen  was  under  a  local  interdict  in  1198,  and  at  the  same 
time,  for  causes  connected  with  those  of  the  interdict,  some 
of  the  clergy  were  excommunicated. 

33  Never s,  1211-1212. 

Herv£,  Count  of  Nevers,  disagreed  for  a  long  time  with  the 
monastery  of  Vezelai.  About  1211  he  carried  his  aggression 
so  far  as  to  blockade  the  monastery  for  a  while,  allowing  noth- 
ing to  pass  in  or  out  without  his  permission ;  he  also  forced 
clerks  to  appear  in  civil  courts  and  otherwise  did  much  harm 
to  the  church.  Herv6  had  married  within  the  prohibited  de- 
grees, a  circumstance  which  gave  the  church  a  special  point 
of  attack.  The  pope  wrote  to  the  Bishop  of  Paris,  the  chan- 
cellor of  Paris,  and  the  Abbot  of  St.  Victor  that  they  should 
use  excommunication  and,  if  necessary,  interdict  to  bring  the 
count  to  terms,  if  Philip  Augustus  had  not  induced  the  count 
to  yield  within  two  months.  Their  commission  was  good  for 
three  years.  In  another  letter,  apparently  not  extant,  he 
gave  these  same  commissioners  orders  to  investigate  the  report 
about  the  consanguinity  of  the  count  and  the  countess.  These 
instructions  greatly  disturbed  the  count's  agent  at  Rome,  who 
begged  the  pope  to  cancel  the  orders ,  giving  all  assurance  he 
could  that  the  count  would  cease  molesting  the  monastery. 

34  (a)  Potth.,  1526,  1527.  See  below,  case  66  (Cremona,  1201).  (b) 
See  below,  n.  573. 


APPENDIX  gg 

The  pontiff  thereupon  ordered  the  commissioners  to  take  no 
action  unless  they  had  already  done  so ;  these  second  orders 
followed  the  first  after  an  interval  of  six  months.  If  the  com- 
missioners obeyed  their  first  instructions  to  act  within  two 
months,  they  had  taken  some  action  when  the  new  bull 
arrived.  The  first  orders,  however,  read  that  interdict  was  to 
be  used  if 'necessary ,and  it  is  very  likely  that  the  sentence  was 
never  issued.  By  the  next  year  the  disputants  came  to  some 
agreement  and  Herve  was  absolved  from  excommunication  on 
December  20,  1213,  and  obtained  a  papal  dispensation 
sanctioning  his  marriage.35 

CASES   OF   ACTUAL   INTERDICT. 

34  Navarre,  1197.™ 

35  Cesena,  December,  1198.™ 

36  Tortona,  1198.™ 

37  Castello,  May,  1199.™ 

38  King  John' s  possessions  ^  1200.® 

39  Lands  of  the  Sons  of  Galbina,  about  1203.^ 

40  Lands  of  Gallus,  about  1207.** 

41  Metz,  1209* 

35 (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XIV,  126  (Potth.,  4332).  (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp., 
XV,  83  (Potth.,  45H).  (c)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XVI,  22  (Potth.,  4704). 
(d)  The  fact  that  absolution  from  excommunication  only  is  granted  argues 
that  the  interdict  was  never  laid,  (e)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XVI,  154  (Potth., 
4862). 

36  (a)  Ibid.,  I,  92  (Potth.,  81).     (b)  Ibid.t  287  (Potth.,  328).     On  June 
6,  1198,  Innocent  gave  the  Bishop  of  Pampluna  the  privilege  of  holding 
silent  services  in  his  own  chapel  in  time  of  interdict.     The  bull  gives  no  in- 
dication whether  there  is  an  interdict  in  force  in  Navarre  or  whether  this 
privilege  is  given  in  anticipation  of  one. 

37  Ibid.,  46 1  (Potth.,  4 73). 
58 Ibid.,  132  (Potth.,  150). 
*Ibid.,  II,  285  (Potth.,  718). 

*°Theiner,  Vet.  Mon.  Slav.  Merid.,  I,  48,  Nos.  43,  44  (Potth.,  997, 
998). 

41  Mittarelli,  Annal.  Camald.,  IV,  App.,  col.  255  (Potth.,  1904). 

"Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  X,  14.1  (Potth.,  3205). 

48  Cited  from  Raumer,  Gesck.  Hohenst.,  VI,  168,  n.  7. 


I00  THE  INTERDICT 

42  Lands  of  Ours.     Removed  1211.** 

43  Lands  of  Count  Stephen  of  Burgundy,  1212.^ 

44  Parts  of  Achaia,  etc.,  between  May,  1212,  and  August, 

1213" 

45  Treviso,  October,  1200. 

In  a  battle  between  the  people  of  Treviso  and  the  forces  led 
by  the  Bishop  of  Belluno,  Gerardus  Taciolus,  the  prelate,  had 
lost  his  life  (1197)  ;  for  this  reason  Celestin  III  put  Treviso 
under  interdict.  This  endured  until  October  of  1200,  at 
which  time  the  citizens  of  Treviso  sent  messengers  to  Innocent 
offering  to  make  satisfaction  if  the  pope  would  raise  the  inter- 
dict. In  the  course  of  the  negotiations  the  question  arose 
whether  Celestin  had  laid  the  interdict  for  the  death  of  the 
bishop  or  for  other  excesses  of  the  city  also.  The  bull  laying 
the  interdict  could  not  be  found  in  the  register,  and  for  this 
reason  Innocent  sent  agents  into  the  vicinity  of  Treviso  to 
search  for  a  copy  of  the  bull.  He  forbade  with  threat  of 
anathema  the  concealment  of  such  bulls.  Should  a  copy  be 
found,  and  should  it  appear  that  the  interdict  was  laid  only  for 
the  death  of  the  bishop ,  or  should  no  copy  be  found,  in  which 
case  Treviso  was  to  have  the  benefit  of  the  doubt,  the  inter- 
dict was  to  be  relaxed,  provided  the  citizens  took  oath  to  abide 
by  the  papal  award.  But  if  the  bull  was  found,  and  it  ap- 
peared that  the  interdict  was  laid  for  other  causes  than  the 
death  of  the  bishop,  the  interdict  was  in  no  case  to  be  re- 
laxed until  they  had  made  satisfaction  for  those  excesses. 
Nothing  more  is  known  of  this  case ;  it  is  probable  that  the 
interdict  was  relaxed  soon  after  these  instructions  were  given, 
for  relaxation  was  certain  if  no  letters  were  found ;  and,  if  the 
letters  were  found  and  gave  evidence  that  the  people  of 
Treviso  had  been  sentenced  for  several  offences,  they  no  doubt 

"Inn.  Opp.,  Ill,  485  (Potth.,  4333). 
"Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XV,  11  (Potth.,  4408). 

*e  (a)  Ibid.,  XVI,  98  (Potth.,  4798).  (b)  Ibid.,  Epp.,  XV,  75  (Potth., 
4483). 


APPENDIX  .  ,p'i  . 

gave  the  extra  satisfaction,  rather   than  endure   longer  the 
interdict  which  had  already  compelled  them  to  yield.47 
46  Parma  and  Piacenza,  1198. 

This  interdict  was  laid  at  the  command  of  Innocent  III  and 
was  afterwards  confirmed  by  him.  Peter,  Cardinal-deacon  of 
S.  Maria  in  Via  Lata,  while  performing  the  functions  of  legate 
in  Lombardy  had  been  robbed  of  some  of  his  possessions,  and 
the  robber  took  refuge  in  Parma  and  Piacenza.  This  was  the 
cause  of  the  interdict.  It  was  only  partially  observed,  and 
the  pope  found  it  necessary  to  command  the  clergy  to  see  that 
it  was  heeded.  The  cities  were  also  threatened  with  punish- 
ment, if  they  failed  to  procure  a  restoration  of  the  stolen 
property  :  the  church  of  Borgo  San  Donnino,  near  Parma,  was 
to  be  transferred  to  the  jurisdiction  of  Rome ;  Piacenza  was 
to  be  subjected  to  the  Archbishop  of  Ravenna ;  if  this  did  not 
prove  adequate,  both  cities  were  to  be  deprived  of  episcopal 
dignity.  These  threats  did  not  avail,  and  on  April  21,  1198, 
Innocent  wrote  to  the  bishops  and  clergy  of  both  cities  that 
his  threat  would  take  effect  if  they  remained  obdurate  after 
fifteen  days.  He  also  gave  them  to  understand  that  he  had 
written  to  the  Empress  Constance,  to  the  Kings  of  France  and 
England,  to  the  Count  and  Barons  of  Champagne,  to  the 
Duke  of  Burgundy,  and  to  the  Count  of  Maurienne,  instruct- 
ing them  to  seize  the  goods  of  all  Parman  and  Piacenzan 
merchants  within  their  domains ;  that  this  property  was  to  be 
held  until  the  cities  had  made  satisfaction  to  both  the  plun- 
dered cardinal  and  the  pope,  and  until  the  pope  gave  instruc- 
tions about  the  disposal  of  the  properties.  In  addition,  the 
consuls  of  Piacenza  and  the  Podesta  of  Parma  were  threatened 
with  excommunication ,  and  all  cities  and  lands  to  which  they 
should  come  were  to  suspend  services  as  long  as  they  were 
present.48 

The  cities  persisted  in  their  disobedience  and  the  punish- 

47  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  Ill,  39  (Potth.,  1160).     Cf.  ibid.,  II,  27. 
48 Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  121,  122  (Potth.,  91,  89). 


I02  'THE  INTERDICT 

ments  went  into  effect.49  The  Archbishop  of  Ravenna  was 
notified  of  the  increase  of  his  jurisdiction,50  and  a  bull  dated 
August  26,  1198,  shows  that  the  threat  against  Parma  had  at 
some  previous  time  been  executed  by  the  Archbishop  of  Milan 
and  the  Bishop  of  Como.51  By  October  of  the  same  year, 
however,  Parma  came  to  an  agreement  with  the  cardinal.  The 
citizens  agreed  to  pay  half  of  the  sum  which  had  been  taken, 
and  made  a  first  payment  of  one  hundred  marks;  the  re- 
mainder was  to  be  paid  by  the  octave  of  the  next  Easter. 
The  cardinal  surrendered  his  claim  to  the  other  half  of  the 
sum,  relaxed  the  sentences  of  excommunication  and  interdict, 
and  restored  the  church  to  the  city.  The  pope  confirmed  the 
cardinal's  acts  and  surrendered  whatever  claims  the  papacy 
had  in  the  stolen  sums.52  In  November  of  the  same  year  San 
Donnino 53  was  notified  of  its  restoration  to  Parma.  No  further 
mention  of  the  interdict  of  Piacenza  is  made ;  it  is  possible 
that  it  ended  at  the  same  time  as  that  of  Parma,  for  it  is  not 
specified  in  the  letters  that  Parma  is  paying  merely  her  share 
of  the  plunder. 

47  Piacenza ,  sentence  removed  1215?* 

48  Pisa,  1198. 

In  1198  the  pope  sent  two  cardinals  to  Pisa  to  induce  her 
to  join  the  Tuscan  League.  The  Pisans  were  unwilling  to  do 

49  Whether  at  the  time  threatened  or  not  is  uncertain,  as  the  letter  to  the 
Archbishop  of  Ravenna  is  undated. 

50  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  123  (Potth.,  90). 
61  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  340  (Potth.,  355). 
52 Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  393  (Potth.,  399). 

53  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  403  (Potth.,  413).  (b)  Aguirre,  Cone.  Hisp., 
V,  118.  The  bull  given  by  Aguirre,  though  beginning  with  the  same 
words  as  that  in  Migne  (Inn.  Opp.,  I,  378),  is  different.  The  bull  in 
Migne  is  probably  a  combination  of  two  letters.  The  interdict  mentioned 
at  the  close  of  the  bull,  is,  as  far  as  the  evidence  of  the  fragmentary  letter 
goes,  a  personal  interdict. 

"Annal.  Placentini  Guelfi,  ad  an.  1215,  in  MGSS ,  XVIII,  p.  431. 
When  this  sentence  was  laid  is  not  stated  by  the  annalist,  but  it  is  very 
improbable  that  this  is  the  interdict  laid  in  1198.  Cf.  Luchaire,  Lt  Con- 
die  de  Latran,  p.  1 6. 


APPENDIX  103 

this,  and  to  their  great  annoyance  their  city  was  interdicted. 
Later  Innocent  made  certain  demands  of  the  league  and  in- 
structed the  cardinals  that,  if  the  rectors  of  the  league  agreed 
to  his  conditions,  Pisa  was  also  to  be  induced  to  agree,  and 
the  interdict  was  under  no  circumstances  to  be  relaxed  unless 
she  did.  Should  the  rectors  of  the  league,  however,  not  be 
ready  to  meet  his  wishes,  then,  since  it  seemed  rather  severe 
that  Pisa  should  for  so  long  a  time  lie  under  interdict  on  ac- 
count of  the  delay  of  the  league,  he  ordered  that  the  interdict 
be  removed  without  delay,  if  the  citizens  would  pledge  them- 
selves to  abide  by  the  papal  award.  Should  this  pledge  be 
unobtainable  becausa  Pisa  was  just  then  without  a  rector,  the 
legates  were  to  give  the  city  license  to  celebrate  services  and 
were  to  rely  on  the  promises  of  the  city's  nuncios.  It  was  to 
be  understood  by  the  citizens  that,  if  at  a  later  time  the  rectors 
of  the  league  accepted  the  papal  order,  Pisa,  unless  she  did 
likewise,  should  again  fall  under  interdict.55 

49  Narni,  1198. 

At  the  beginning  of  Innocent's  pontificate,  the  inhabitants 
of  Narni  were  seriously  molesting  Otricoli.  In  spite  of  the 
warning  to  discontinue  under  threat  of  interdict  and  penalty 
of  a  thousand  marks,  they  seized  and  destroyed  the  fortress. 
In  the  struggle  they  were  aided  by  the  citizens  of  Viterbo, 
who  were  also  interdicted.  The  pope  thereupon  sent  an  army, 
which  reduced  the  inhabitants  of  Narni  to  submission.  He 
exacted  the  bond  of  a  thousand  marks  and  obliged  them  to 
add  two  hundred  pounds,  to  be  used  for  the  restoration  of  the 
ruined  walls,  before  he  relaxed  the  interdict.56 

5°   Viterbo,  about  1199- 1200. 

Innocent,  having  been  opposed  by  Viterbo  in  the  affair  of 
Narni,  favored  the  Romans  in  their  dispute  with  Viterbo  over 

56  (a)  Cronica  di  Pisa,  in  Muratori,  Rer.  It.  Scr.,  XV,  977.  (b)  Inn. 
Ill,  Epp.,  I,  35  (Potth.,  39)-  Cf.  ibid.,  15,  34. 

54  (a)  This  threat  may  have  been  made  by  Celestin  III.  (b)  Gesta,  c. 
133.  (c)  Ibid.,  c.  16. 


1O4 


THE  INTERDICT 


Vitorchiano.  He  commanded  the  people  of  Viterbo  not  to 
molest  Vitorchiano,  or  to  justify  their  course  before  the  curia. 
They  completely  ignored  this  command  and  were  interdicted. 
In  the  struggle  which  followed,  the  pope  gained  a  point  by 
winning  over  the  Tuscan  League,  and  finally  Viterbo  was  sub- 
jected by  force  of  arms.57 

51  Narni,  1208. 

Whether  this  interdict  of  Narni  is  connected  with  that  of 
1198  is  not  evident  from  the  limited  statements  of  the  sources. 
The  papal  bull  of  September,  1208,  begins  by  stating  that 
since  the  people  of  Narni  were  so  reprobate,  and  since  the 
pope  no  longer  chose  to  tolerate  their  insolence,  he  had  placed 
the  city  under  the  strictest  interdict.  No  sacrament  what- 
ever was  to  be  allowed  except  penance  for  the  dying  and  bap- 
tism for  infants.  Burial  was  denied,  and  if  any  one  gave 
burial  in  consecrated  ground,  he  was  to  be  excommunicated. 
It  was  prohibited  to  trade  with  Narni  under  pain  of  excom- 
munication. The  clergy  was  ordered  to  leave  the  city,  and 
go  to  convenient  neighboring  places;  and,  if  the  city  refused 
to  yield,  it  was  to  be  deprived  of  its  bishop.58 

52  Leon  and  Portugal,  1198-1204. 

When  Innocent  was  elected  pope  there  was  an  interdict  on 
Leon  and  Portugal,  which  had  been  laid  by  Gregory ,  Cardinal- 
deacon  of  the  title  of  St.  Angelus,  because  of  the  consanguin- 
eous marriage  of  Alfonso,  King  of  Leon,  to  Tarasia,  Princess 
of  Portugal.  This  union  was  dissolved  in  1196,  but  the  inter- 
dict was  not  removed,  and  still  existed  when  Innocent  came 
into  power.59  In  April,  1198,  he  ordered  his  emissary, 

57  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  II,  207.     The  sentence  is  called  an  excommunica- 
tion,    (b)  Gesta,  c.  133.     (c)  Cf.  Inn.  Opp.,  I,  clxxix,  n.  40. 

58  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XI,  143  (Potth.,  3501). 

59  (a)  La  Clede,  Hist,  de  Port.,  II,  I56f.     (b)   Portugal  was  also  under 
interdict    (Mariana,  De  Rebus  Hisp.,  lib.   IX,  c.    19,  in   Schott,  Hisp. 
Illustr.,  II,  544).     (c)  Inn.   Ill,  Epp.,  I,   92  (Potth.,  81).     (d)  That 
Gregory  was  in  Spain  at  the  time  of  Celestin  appears  from  the  fact  that  the 
Bishop  of  Zamora,  who  was  excommunicated  by  Gregory  (Epp.,  I,  92), 
came  to  Rome  in  the  time  of  Celestin  to  seek  absolution  (ibid.,  58).     A 


APPENDIX 


105 


Rayner,  to  relax  the  interdict,60  if  Alfonso  would  give  oalh  to 
obey  the  commands  of  the  church  relative  to  the  dissolved 
marriage.61  Whether  the  interdict  was  relaxed  under  these 
conditions  remains  a  mystery ;  its  subsequent  history  is  ob- 
scured by  the  new  interdict  threatened  in  the  same  bull  which 
provided  for  the  relaxation  of  the  old.60  The  King  of  Castile, 
who  had  used  arms  to  compel  the  dissolution  of  the  marriage, 
had  given  his  daughter,  Berengaria,  as  wife  to  Alfonso  in  1 197. 
This  was  done  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  with  the  consent  of 
Pope  Celestin,  though  Berengaria,  like  Tarasia,  was  related  to 
Alfonso  within  the  prohibited  degrees.  When  report  of  this 
reached  the  new  pontiff,  Innocent,  he  took  immediate  action 
and  dispatched  Rayner  to  Spain  to  dissolve  the  marriage.62 
Rayner's  instructions  were  to  warn  the  monarchs  of  Leon  and 
Castile  earnestly,  and,  if  they  refused  to  dissolve  the  incestuous 
marriage,  to  employ  excommunication  and  interdict  against 
them.  Rayner,  after  repeatedly  warning  Alfonso,  finally  set  a 
time  and  a  place  at  which  the  king  might  show  cause  why  the 
interdict  should  not  be  laid.  The  monarch  did  not  appear, 
even  though  the  legate  waited  beyond  the  time  set.  The  in- 
terdict was  then  issued  upon  Leon ;  Castile  was  not  interdicted 
because  its  ruler  professed  himself  ready  to  dissolve  the  illicit 
union. 

Efforts  were  at  once  made  to  secure  a  dispensation  from 
Innocent.  Three  Spanish  prelates  applied  in  Rome  for 
special  consideration,  but  were  given  such  a  rebuff  that  they 

Portuguese  writer  states  that  the  cardinal  sent  to  Spain  was  the  Cardinal  of 
St.  Angelus  (AASS.,  June,  IV,  389),  and,  as  the  marriage  of  Alfonso  and 
Tarasia  occurred  in  1194  (Hoveden  [R.  Ser."],  Ill,  90),  this  cardinal 
could  have  been  Gregory  only;  for  he  was  promoted  in  1190  (Eubel, 
Hier.  Cath.).  But,  whether  the  sentence  laid  by  Gregory  was  because  of 
the  offensive  marriage  or  not,  it  is  clear  that  the  sentence,  stated  by  Epp., 
I,  92,  to  have  been  laid  by  him,  was  laid  in  the  time  of  Celestin  III. 
The  correctness  of  this  is  supported  by  the  fact  that  Gregory  was  in  Rome 
and  attested  letters  beginning  with  March  13,  1198  (Potth.,  46,  54,  107, 
etc.).  Cf.  also  Epp.,  I,  125.  (e)  Hoveden  (A".  Ser.)t  III,  90. 

60  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  125  (Potth.,  131). 

61  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  92,  93  (Potth.,  81,  92). 
62Gesta,  c.  58. 


106  THE  INTERDICT 

quickly  saw  the  hopelessness  of  their  plea.63  Neither  did  the 
twenty  thousand  marks  sent  by  Alfonso  to  the  pope  and  the 
cardinals,  nor  his  offer  to  support  two  hundred  crusading 
knights,  secure  for  him  the  privilege  of  living  with  Berengaria 
until  God  gave  them  an  heir,  or  of  living  with  her  for  three 
years  at  least.  Innocent  yielded  to  none  of  his  inducements.63 
When  the  Spanish  emissaries  saw  that  they  could  not  obtain 
a  dispensation,  they  prayed  that  at  least  the  interdict  might  be 
relaxed,  because  it  brought  harm  to  the  church  from  three 
sources — from  heretics,  Saracens,  and  the  Christians  them- 
selves.64 Innocent  was  not  inclined  to  grant  their  petition, 
but  for  the  sake  of  the  great  number  involved  he  finally  de- 
termined upon  tentative  mitigation.  Services  were  to  be 
allowed  in  the  realm,  but  no  layman  was  to  enjoy  Chrisiatn 
burial,  though  clerks  might  be  buried  without  solemnity  in  the 
cemeteries.  In  order  not  to  lessen  the  severity  of  the  sentence 
for  the  royal  offenders,  it  was  determined  that  they  and  their 
principal  councillors  and  adherents  should  be  bound  by  ex- 
communication, and  that  services  should  cease  in  any  city  or 
town  when  they  were  present.  The  rulers  of  Castile  were 
ordered  under  pain  of  excommunication  and  interdict  to  aid 
in  securing  the  dissolution  of  the  incestuous  union.  These 
efforts  failed  to  have  the  desired  effect;  it  was  not  until  1204 
that  Berengaria  separated  from  her  husband.  Even  then  not 
the  interdict,  but  apparently  her  own  desire,  induced  her  to 
leave  him;  for  in  May,  1204,  sne  was  absolved,  though 
Alfonso  remained  under  interdict.  The  absolution  of  Alfonso 
and  those  excommunicated  with  him  followed  on  June  20  ;  and 
at  the  same  time  the  pope  agreed  that  the  interdict  was  to  be 
removed  upon  the  receipt  of  sufficient  security.65 

^Hoveden  (.#.  Ser.\  IV,  78-79. 

64  Gesta,  c.  58.     See  above,  p.  74. 

«  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VII,  67,  94  (Potth.,  2219,  2249).  (b)  When 
the  marriage  of  Alfonso  to  Berengaria  took  place,  Alfonso  transferred  a 
chateau  to  Castile,  probably  as  a  dower.  Upon  the  dissolution  of  the 
marriage  Innocent  ordered  the  chateau  to  be  restored  to  Leon,  under  pain 
of  excommunication  and  interdict.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  threat 
was  executed. 


APPENDIX 


107 


53  Porto,  12 

Laid  by  the  Bishop  of  Porto  on  his  city  and  diocese.66 

54  Tortosa,  1199-1207. 

In  April,  1199,  a  papal  letter  was  addressed  to  the  Hos- 
pitalers of  Amposta67,  in  which  it  was  stated  that  the  Hos- 
pitalers had  been  violating  their  privileges  by  burying  and  by 
admitting  to  the  sacraments  persons  interdicted  by  the  Bishop 
of  Tortosa ;  they  were  commanded  to  discontinue  such  prac- 
tices. The  cause  for  this  interdict  on  Tortosa  was  the  refusal 
of  the  citizens  to  pay  tithes  and  first-fruits.  No  further  men- 
tion of  an  interdict  on  the  city  is  found  until  1207,  when, 
about  November,  it  is  reported  that  an  "  excommunication  " 
laid  upon  the  city  for  the  non-payment  of  tithes  and  first- 
fruits  was  removed.  During  the  time  that  this  excommunica- 
tion was  in  force  about  a  hundred  bodies  had  been  buried  in 
the  cemetery  of  the  church.  A  condition  of  the  relaxation 
was  that  these  bodies  be  exhumed.  This  was  done  to  expiate 
the  former  contempt  of  the  citizens.68  Two  circumstances 
make  it  reasonable  to  consider  the  excommunication  men- 
tioned in  1207  the  same  as  the  interdict  mentioned  in  1199  : 
first,  in  each  case  the  sentence  is  said  to  have  been  laid  for  the 
same  cause ,  namely ,  the  retention  of  tithes  and  first-fruits ; 
second,  a  hundred  people  were  buried  during  the  time  the 
sentence  was  in  effect.  This  number  of  dead  indicates  an  in- 
terval of  some  years ,  in  view  of  the  comparatively  small  popu- 
lation of  mediaeval  towns  of  the  importance  of  Tortosa.  Nor 
does  a  hundred  account  for  all  that  died  in  this  interval,  for  it 
is  not  at  all  likely  that  even  a  majority  of  the  dead  were  buried 
in  the  cemetery;  the  letter  of  1199  shows  that  some  had 
secured  burial  with  the  Hospitalers,  and  no  doubt  others  re- 
spected the  commands  of  the  church  enough  not  to  infringe 

^Raynald.,  Annal.,  1210,  §  4.  Cf.  Potth.,  4001,  4002,  and  Luchaire, 
Les  Royautis  Vassales  du  Saint- Sitge,  13. 

67  Villanueva,  Viage  literario  a  las  iglesias  de  Espana,  V,  275  (Potth., 
Addend.,  664a,  25466;  cf.  Potth.,  6640). 

88  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  X,  158  (Potth.,  3234). 


108  THE  INTERDICT 

her  rules.     In  view  of  these  circumstances,  it  seems  reason- 
able to  assert  that  both  letters  refer  to  the  same  interdict. 
55  Flanders,  1198-1199. 

In  the  decade  preceding  the  accession  of  Innocent,  Flan- 
ders had  two  interdicts.  About  1194  the  Count  of  Flanders 
and  others  damaged  church  property  and  an  interdict  was  laid 
upon  his  lands.69  This  interdict  was  removed  by  1196  or 
1 1 97,  for  at  that  time  a  second  interdict  was  threatened  at 
the  instance  of  the  Cardinal  Legate  Melior.70  Stephen  of 
Tournay  strongly  objected  to  the  proposed  interdict,  on  the 
ground  of  the  harm  which  would  result  from  it.71  Neverthe- 
less the  sentence  was  laid.  The  time  of  its  removal  was  prob- 
ably the  latter  part  of  1197  or  the  first  part  of  1198.  A  third 
interdict  was  laid  on  Flanders  in  the  early  years  of  the  new 
pontificate,  the  causes  for  which  ran  back  into  the  time  when 
the  second  interdict  was  in  force.  In  June,  1196,  a  compact 
was  made  between  Philip  Augustus  and  Baldwin,  Count  of 
Flanders  and  Hainault,  by  which  Baldwin  swore  fealty  to 
the  King  of  France.72  Article  5  of  the  pact  reads  :  "  Further- 
more we  will  ask  and  in  good  faith  require  the  Archbishop  of 
Reims  and  the  Bishops  of  Arras,  Cambray,  Tournay,  and 
Te"rouanne  that  so  often  as  we  shall  fail  to  keep  the  aforesaid 
terms  they  shall  excommunicate  us  and  place  our  whole  land 
under  interdict,  regardless  of  any  appeal,  until  emendation  be 
made  to  the  King  of  France." 73  Later  Baldwin  found  that  he 
could  not  secure  observance  of  the  pact  from  his  subjects,  and 
he  requested  and  secured  a  release  sanctioned  by  Philip.  The 
latter,  however,  concealed  the  fact  that  he  had  released  the 
count,  secured  a  papal  confirmation  of  the  compact  from 

69Steph.  Tornac. ,  Epp. ,  232,  in  Migne,  Pat.  Lat.,  211,  col.  502.  Cf. 
Rec.>  XIX,  462a. 

70Steph.  Tornac.,  Epp.,  231,  in  Migne,  Pat.  Lat.,  col.  501. 

71  Ibid.>  233,  234,  in  ibid.,  col.  502-504. 

72Delisle,  Cat.  des  Actes  de  Ph.  Aug.,  No.  497.  Cf.  Diet.  Natl.  Biog., 
XLVIII,  142. 

73  (a)  Rec.,  XIX,  352-353.  Cf.  Potth.,  673.  (b)  Delisle,  Actes,  No. 
498. 


APPENDIX 

Celestin  III,7*  and  on  this  pontiff's  death  a  reconfirmation 
from  his  successor.75  The  new  pontiff  instructed  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Reims  and  his  suffragans  to  enforce  the  compact  by 
excommunication  and  interdict  if  necessary.  Thereafter 
trouble  arose,76  and,  when  the  Archbishop  of  Reims  was  about 
to  excommunicate  the  count  and  interdict  his  lands,  Baldwin 
appealed  to  Rome,  asserting  that  the  papal  letters  confirming 
the  convention  were  obtained  under  false  pretences.  This 
apparently  did  not  hinder  the  laying  of  the  interdict,  for  the 
papal  letter  of  April  26,  1199,  which  relates  these  matters, 
ordered  that  the  count  be  absolved  from  excommunication  and 
his  lands  from  interdict  within  twenty  days  after  the  receipt 
of  the  letter,  if  the  complaint  of  the  count  was  true.  The  pope 
added  that,  if  those  instructed  failed  to  do  as  bidden,  he  had 
commissioned  others  to  fulfill  his  orders.77  On  the  same  date 
the  chancellery  issued  a  letter  to  Philip,  in  which  the  pope 
explained  his  action  and  requested  the  king  not  to  be  disturbed 
over  this  just  decision.78  Two  days  later  the  pope  took  Bald- 
win and  his  wife  under  papal  protection,  forbidding  any  one 
to  use  excommunication  or  interdict  against  them  without 
good  and  sufficient  cause.79  In  consequence  of  the  order  of 
Innocent,  the  interdict  was  probably  removed.  In  January, 
1 200,  Baldwin  made  peace  with  Philip.80 
56  Normandy,  1199. 

Normandy  was  interdicted  by  the  legate,  Peter  of  Capua, 
on  account  of  the  detention  of  Philip  of  Beauvais,  who  was 
taken  prisoner  by  the  English  and  was  detained  for  some 
time.81  Immediately  after  Innocent's  accession  he  "  sent  his 

74  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  II,  40  (Potth.,  673). 

75  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I.  130  (Potth.,  153).     (b)  See  above,  n.  74. 
76Delisle,  Actes,  No.  519. 

77  (a)  Potth.,  673.     (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  II,  41. 

78  Rec.t  XIX,  375  (Potth.,  672). 

79  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  45  (Potth.,  680). 
80Delisle,  Acles>  579. 

81  (a)  Hoveden,  Chron.  (R.  Ser.},  IV,  94.     (b)  Rigord,  De  Gest.  Phil 
August.,  in  Rec.t  XVII,  50.     (c)  Diet.  Natl.  Biog.,  XLVIII,  142-143. 


1 10  THE  INTERDICT 

legate  to  King  John  desiring  him  to  release  the  Bishop  of  Bel- 
voire  (taken  prisoner  by  King  Richard  the  first  in  the  field, 
and  kept  prisoner  by  him  all  his  life,  notwithstanding  this  and 
other  popes'  importunate  letters  for  his  enlargement)  under 
pain  of  interdict,  who  had  then  by  the  space  of  two  years  been 
detained  under  most  cruel  imprisonment  (some  months  in  his 
very  armes,  in  which  he  was  taken  fighting,  not  suffered  to  be 
put  off  day  or  night).  But,  because  the  said  bishop  was  taken 
in  armes  as  a  soldier  and  plunderer,  against  the  dignity  of  his 
order,  the  king  (notwithstanding  the  pope's  entreaties  and 
menaces)  would  not  enlarge  him  until  he  had  paid  6,000 
marks  sterling  money  to  his  exchequer,  and  two  thousand 
marks  for  his  expenses,  during  his  imprisonment  under  King 
Richard  and  himself ;  which  he  accordingly  paid." 82  Another 
account  gives  three  thousand  marks  as  the  amount  paid  by  the 
bishop  for  his  freedom.  The  interdict  was  not  relaxed  until 
the  bishop  was  freed.83 
57  France,  1200. 

The  story  of  the  interdict  of  France  begins  with  the  search 
of  Philip  Augustus  for  a  queen.  His  choice  was  cast  on  a 
princess  of  Denmark,  reports  of  whose  good  qualities  had 
penetrated  far  beyond  the  confines  of  her  native  land.  Agents 
passed  to  and  fro  between  the  Capetian  and  Danish  courts  to 
arrange  a  marriage.  Their  labors  were  successful,  and  the 
Princess  Ingeborg  with  her  suite  made  the  journey  to  France. 
Meantime  her  suitor  was  all  impatience,  and,  as  soon  as  he 
heard  that  the  negotiations  for  the  marriage  had  been  success- 
ful, he  hastened  toward  his  boundaries  to  meet  his  bride.  The 
meeting  took  place  at  Amiens,  and  Philip  was  apparently  so 
charmed  that  he  could  brook  no  delay  of  the  marriage.  In 
the  presence  of  nobles  and  prelates,  and  amidst  regal  splendor, 
the  ceremony  took  place  on  August  14  or  15,  1193.  On  the 
following  day,  in  the  midst  of  mass,  the  king  was  observed  to 
shudder  and  grow  pale  as  he  looked  at  the  queen.  From  that 

82Prynne's  Records,  II,  327.  M  See  above,  n.  8ia. 


APPENDIX  1 1 1 

moment  he  hated  her  for  reasons  which  have  never  become 
known.  Idle  tongues,  indeed,  spread  tales  touching  the 
queen's  good  name,  rumor  told  of  witchcraft,  and  all  wondered 
at  the  cause  of  the  sudden  and  violent  repulsion  with  which 
the  king  regarded  Ingeborg.  His  estrangement  was  now  as 
complete  as  his  enchantment  had  formerly  been  thorough. 
Nor  did  this  unexpected  passion  subside  with  the  passing  of 
time ;  instead  it  began  to  be  rumored  that  the  cause  of  the 
estrangement  was  the  king's  discovery  of  consanguinity  with 
the  queen,  and  it  was  upon  this  plea  that  the  Archbishop  of 
Reims,  on  behalf  of  the  prelates  of  France,  finally  pronounced 
Philip  divorced  from  the  object  of  his  disappointment  (No- 
vember 4  or  5,  1193).  Ingeborg  was  present;  but,  as  she 
could  not  understand  the  language  in  which  the  hearing  was 
conducted,  she  remained  ignorant  of  what  was  being  done 
until  after  the  action  was  taken.  Then  she  was  told  of  her 
divorce.  In  despair  she  employed  the  only  course  open  to 
her  and  appealed  to  Rome. 

At  that  time  the  inert  Celestin  ruled.  He  remonstrated 
against  this  flagrant  violation  of  marriage  vows,  rebuked  the 
prelates  who  had  granted  the  divorce,  and  canceled  their 
sentence,  but  never  proceeded  to  more  active  measures. 
Luckily  for  Ingeborg  and  unfortunately  for  Philip,  this  senile 
pontiff  soon  went  the  way  of  all  flesh,  and  was  succeeded  by 
the  vigorous  Innocent.  The  new  pontiff  was  early  confronted 
by  the  ambassadors  of  King  Cnut  of  Denmark,  who  com- 
plained both  of  the  injustice  done  his  sister  and  of  Philip's 
second  marriage ;  for  that  monarch,  as  if  to  offend  Ingeborg 
doubly,  had  taken  as  wife  Agnes  of  Meran  (in  June,  1196). 
Innocent  was  always  ready  to  defend  the  canons  of  the  church, 
and ,  upon  these  complaints  of  Cnut  and  others ,  he  instructed 
the  legate,  Peter  of  Capua,  to  use  all  means  to  induce  the 
King  of  France  to  dismiss  Agnes,  and  to  receive  his  lawful 
wife,  and,  if  Philip  failed  to  do  so,  to  sentence  France 
with  interdict.64  Philip  soon  received  warning  of  the  inten- 

wHoveden,  Chron.,  Pars  post.,  ad  an.  1199  (£.  Sfr.}>  IV,  85-86. 


!  I2  THE  INTERDICT 

tions  of  the  pontiff  from  no  less  a  person  than  the  pontiff  him- 
self, who  assured  the  king  that,  cost  what  it  might,  he  would  if 
necessary  raise  his  hand  in  defense  of  Ingeborg.85  The  king 
refused  to  be  moved,  in  spite  of  repeated  monitions  and  the 
efforts  of  the  legate,  who  accomplished  nothing  in  ten 
months.86  This  lukewarmness  ended  when  orders  were  received 
from  Rome  that,  unless  the  king  had  within  a  month  after 
warning  received  his  rightful  queen  into  favor,  and  treated  her 
with  proper  honor,  the  whole  realm  should  be  interdicted. 
The  pope  specified  what  services  should  be  allowed,  and  what 
prohibited,  and  commanded  that  all  the  prelates  of  France 
should  observe  the  sentence,  and  cause  it  to  be  observed  in 
their  jurisdictions.87 

The  legate  now  became  active  and  called  a  general  council M 
of  all  the  prelates  of  the  realm  to  meet  at  Dijon,89  in  Burgundy, 
on  December  6,  iiQQ.90  Thither  he  repaired  on  his  return 
journey  to  Italy.91  The  Archbishops  of  Lyons,  Reims,  Besan- 
con,  and  Vienne,  eighteen  bishops,  the  Abbots  of  Cluny, 
Vezelai,  S.  Remi,  S.  Denis,92  and  a  great  many  other  persons93 
assembled  there  for  the  council,  which  lasted  seven  days,  so 
important  was  the  matter  to  be  discussed.  What  happened 
can  only  be  inferred.  Undoubtedly  the  clergy  who  later  re- 
fused to  observe  the  interdict  opposed  the  sentence ;  but 

85  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  171. 

86Chron.  Sythiense  S.  Bertini  ad  an.  1199,  in  Rec.t  XVIII,  599. 

87  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  347  (Potth.,  361). 

88  (a)  Rigord,  De  Gest.  Ph.  Aug.  ad  an.  1199,  in  &c>>  XVII,  51.     (b) 
Chron.  de  S.  Denis,  ad  an.  1199,  in  Rec.>  XVII,  387. 

89  (a)  Ibid,      (b)  Chron.  S.  Benigni  Divionensis  ad  an.  1200,  in  Labbe, 
Nova  Bibl.,  I,  295.     (c)  Guill.  Armor.,  De  Gest.  Ph.  Aug.  ad  an.  1199, 
in  jRec.,  XVII,  75.     (d)  Martene,  Thesaurus,  IV,  147.     (e)  Gesta,  c.  51. 
(f)  See  above,  n.  86. 

90  (a)  See  above,  nn.  88,  89b,  c.     (b)  Hoveden,  Chron.,  Pars  post.,  ad 
an.  1200  (R.  Ser.),  IV,  112-113. 

91  (a)  See  above,  n.  86.     (b)  Sigeb.,  Contin.  Acquic.,  ad  an.  1200,  in 
MGSS.,VI,  436.     (c)  Robt.  Altiss.,  Chronolog.  ad  an.   1199-1200,  in 
Rec.,  XVIII,  263. 

92  See  above,  n.  8gb. 

v*  Gesta,  c.  51.     "  .    „    ,  et  aliorum  multorum  ..." 


APPENDIX  II3 

whether  they  were  in  a  minority  or  whether  they  dared  not 
oppose  the  legate's  execution  of  his  orders  from  the  pope  is  a 
matter  for  speculation.  Whatever  the  position  of  the  prelates, 
the  council  determined  to  lay  an  interdict  on  France ;  not, 
however,  before  Philip's  nuncios,  perceiving  that  such  action 
was  about  to  be  taken,  appealed  to  the  pope  against  the  coun- 
cil.94 The  legate,  relying  on  his  instructions,  ignored  the  ap- 
peal ; 95  it  was  determined  that  the  sentence  should  not  go  into 
effect  until  twenty  days  after  the  coming  Christmas,96  possibly 
in  the  hope  that  in  the  mean  time  the  king  would  perceive  the 
precariousness  of  his  position  and  yield.  The  council  also  pro- 
mulgated a  form  of  interdict  which  announced  what  services 
and  ecclesiastical  ministrations  were  prohibited.  From  Dijon, 
the  legate  continued  his  journey  to  Vienne,  which  lay  without 
the  bounds  of  Philip's  realm.  There  he  held  a  special  coun- 
cil97 attended  by  several  archbishops,  some  of  them  from 
France ; 98  in  this  council  he  promulgated  the  interdict  ordered 
by  the  pope,99  and  enjoined  its  observance  on  the  prelates, 
after  which  he  went  his  way.100  Meantime  Philip  sent  agents 
to  Rome  to  secure  relief.101  The  twenty-day  period  after 

94  (a)  Gesta,  c.  51.     (b)  See  above,  n.  88a.     (c)  See  above,  n.  88b. 

95Gesta,  c.  51.  «'  .  .  .  quatenus  alibi  mandatum  apostolicum  com- 
modius  adimpleret  .  .  .  ". 

96  See  above,  nn.  88,  Sgc. 

97  (a)  Chron.   S.   Benigni  Divionensis,  ad   an.   1200,  in  Labbe,  Nova 
Bibl.,    I,    295.     "  .    .    .  apud  Viennam   particulare    revocavit  Concilium 

.    .      ".     (b)  Gesta,  c.  51. 

98  Ibid.     "  .    .       apud  Viennam  multis  Archiepiscopis  convocatis,  inter 
quos  quidam  de  regno  Francorum  fuere  praesentes  ". 

99  (a)  Chron.  Sythiense  S.   Bertini  ad  an.   1199,  in  Rec.,  XVIII,  599. 
(b)  Sigeb.,  Contin.  Acquic.,  ad  an.  1200,  in  MGSS.,  VI,  436.     "  Sen- 
tentiam  quam  in   Franciam  ex  domni  pape  precepto  dare  debuerat,  ibi 
dedit  et  regem  cum  omni  terra  sua  inaudita  severitate  interdixit."     (c) 
See  above,  n.  97. 

100  (a)  Gesta,  c.  51.     (b)  Hoveden,  Chron.,  Pars  post.,  ad  an.   1200 
(R.  Ser.),  IV,  112-113. 

10IGuill.  Armor.,  De  Gest.  Ph.  Aug.  ad  an.  1199,  in  Rec.,  XVII,  75. 
"...  non  multo  post  Philippus  Rex  misit  solemnes  nuncios  ad  dominum 
Papam." 


!  I4  THE  INTERDICT 

Christmas  having  elapsed,  the  interdict  was  published  and 
went  into  force. 

This  was  the  sentence  :  m  "  All  churches  shall  be  closed,  and 
no  one  shall  be  admitted  to  them  unless  it  is  to  baptize  infants, 
nor  shall  they  be  opened  for  any  other  purpose  than  for  the 
care  of  the  lights,  or  when  the  priest  must  get  the  host  and 
holy  water  for  the  use  of  the  sick.  Mass  may  be  celebrated 
early  every  Friday  morning,  for  the  consecration  of  the  host 
needed  for  the  sick,  but  only  one  clerk  may  be  present  to  assist 
the  priest.  To  take  the  place  of  mass,  priests  may  preach  on 
Sundays  in  the  vestibules  of  churches,  and  thus  spread  the 
word  of  God.  They  may  recite  canonical  hours  outside  of 
churches,  provided  laymen  do  not  hear;  if  they  recite  the 
epistles ,  or  the  gospels,  they  shall  take  care  not  to  be  heard  by 
the  laity.  They  shall  not  permit  bodies  to  be  buried,  or  to  be 
placed  unburied,  in  cemeteries.  Furthermore,  they  shall  in- 
form the  laity  that  they  sin  grievously  if  they  bury  bodies  in 
unconsecrated  ground,  even  without  blessing,  and  that  they  go 
to  excess  in  assuming  another's  office  in  this  matter.  The 
priests  shall  forbid  parishioners  to  enter  open  churches  in  the 
land  of  the  king ;  they  shall  not  bless  the  wallets  of  pilgrims, 
unless  it  be  outside  of  the  church.  In  passion- week  they  shall 
not  celebrate  ;  on  Easter-day  they  may  celebrate  privately ,  but 
only  one  clerk  may  be  admitted,  as  has  been  stated  above ;  no 
one  shall  commune  even  on  Easter,  unless  he  is  sick  and  at 
the  point  of  death.  Either  on  Palm  Sunday  or  during  pas- 
sion-week the  people  shall  be  told  to  gather  before  the  church 
on  the  morning  of  Easter,  where  they  will  be  given  the  privi- 
lege of  eating  the  blessed  bread  and  meat  of  the  day.103 
Clerks  positively  may  not  admit  women  into  the  church  for 
purification  ;  they  shall  advise  them  to  gather  with  their  neigh- 

102  (a)  Marine,  Thesaurus,  IV,  147.  (b)  Migne,  Pat.  Lat.,  214,  col. 
xcvii,  n.  60.  (c)  Cf.  Rowland's  translation,  in  Univ.  of  Penn.  Trans, 
and  Reprints t  V. 

108  On  Easter  morning  it  was  the  custom  to  bless  some  meat,  bread,  and 
eggs,  which  were  eaten  before  any  other  food. 


APPENDIX  H5 

bors  on  the  day  of  churching,  and  to  pray  outside  of  the 
church ;  women  who  are  to  be  purified  may  not  enter  the 
church  even  for  the  purpose  of  raising  children  to  the  sacred 
font  for  baptism ;  even  after  the  interdict,  they  may  not  enter 
the  church  until  they  are  invited  to  do  so  by  the  priest.  The 
confession  of  all  who  seek  it  shall  be  heard  by  the  priests  in 
the  vestibule  of  the  church ;  and ,  if  the  church  has  no  vesti- 
bule, the  confession  may  be  heard  on  the  threshold  of  the 
outermost  door,  which  the  inclemency  of  wind  or  rain  permits 
to  be  opened ,  but  nowhere  else ;  all  must  be  excluded  except 
the  person  who  wishes  to  confess,  but  the  voices  must  be  so 
loud  that  the  priest  and  the  person  confessing  can  be  heard  by 
those  who  chance  to  be  outside  of  the  church.  If  the  weather 
is  mild,  confession  shall  be  heard  before  closed  church-doors. 
Receptacles  with  holy  water  shall  not  be  placed  outside  of  the 
church ;  nor  shall  clerks  use  holy  water  anywhere,  since  it  is 
understood  that  all  ecclesiastical  sacraments  are  prohibited  but 
those  two  which  are  excepted.  Extreme  Unction,  which  is 
the  last  sacrament,  may  not  be  given."  This  sentence  was 
confirmed  by  the  pope,  who,  however,  decreed  that  all  who 
had  taken  or  should  thereafter  take  the  cross  might  hear  mass 
and  have  Christian  burial ; I04  no  others  were  to  be  excused 
from  a  strict  observance  of  the  interdict. 

The  severity  of  the  sentence  called  forth  firm  resistance 
from  the  angry  Philip.  He  expelled  from  their  sees  all  the 
prelates  of  his  realm,  because  they  had  assented  to  the  inter- 
dict ;  he  seized  the  fees  and  rents  of  the  lower  clergy ,  ex- 
pelled many  of  them,  and  despoiled  even  parish  priests.105 
Ingeborg,  the  cause  of  these  difficulties,  felt  the  wrath  of  the 
king ;  she  was  deprived  of  all  companionship  and  thrust  into 
confinement  in  the  castle  of  fitampes.106  Some  of  the  bishops 

104  (a)  Hoveden,  Chron.,  Pars  post.,  ad  an.  1200  (R.  Ser.),  IV,  113. 
(b)  Gesta,  c.  84. 

loi(a)  Chron.  de  S.  Denis  ad  an.  1199,  in  Rec.,  XVII,  387.  (b) 
Rigord,  DeGest.  Ph.  Aug.  ad  an.  1199,  in  Rec.t  XVII,  51. 


H6  THE  INTERDICT 

were  very  ardent  in  the  observance  of  the  interdict ;  among 
them  were  the  Bishops  of  Paris,  Senlis,  Soissons,  Amiens,  and 
Arras.107  Philip  was  most  enraged  against  the  Bishop  of  Paris, 
and  sent  some  knights  who  despoiled  him  of  his  horses  and 
other  properties  and  forced  him  to  leave  his  diocese  on  foot ; 108 
the  Bishop  of  Senlis  suffered  the  same  indignity.  These  pre- 
lates, however,  received  sympathetic  and  encouraging  letters 
from  Rome.109  There  was  by  no  means  unanimity  among  the 
ecclesiastics  regarding  the  observance  of  the  sentence ;  some 
humbly  deferred  to  the  papal  order,  others  either  from  pre- 
ference for  the  king  or  from  fear  of  him  violated  the  inter- 
dict.108 Among  the  latter  were  the  Archbishop  of  Reims  and 
the  Bishops  of  Laon,  Noyon,  Auxerre,  Beauvais,  Te"rouanne, 
Meaux,  Chartres,  and  Orleans.110  The  prelates  met,  and  after 
deliberation  declared  that  the  sentence  need  not  be  observed.111 
They  sent  agents  to  Rome  to  excuse  their  action,  and  to  pro- 
fess that  they  would  observe  the  sentence,  if  the  pope  should 
demand  it ; 11?  in  the  mean  time  they  and  others  of  the  clergy 
maintained  friendly  relations  with  the  king.  At  the  marriage 
of  Philip's  son  in  Normandy  many  French  bishops  and  eccle- 
siastics were  present  with  the  king  and  nobles  ;  the  Archbishop 
of  Bordeaux  performed  the  ceremony.113  The  Bishop  of  Meaux 
and  Philip  of  Beauvais  were  still  with  the  king  in  May,  i2oo.114 
The  Cistercians  also  disagreed ;  some  of  them  convened  in 
Paris  and  deliberated  as  to  what  course  to  pursue,  others  dis- 

107  (a)   Gesta,   c.   52.     (b)    Sigeb.,  Contin.    Acquic.,  ad  an.    1200,  in 
MGSS.,  VI,  436.     (c)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  Ill,  25. 

108  Rad.  Coggesh.,  in  Rec.,  XVIII,  91.      Cf.  Davidsohn.  Philipp  II  und 
Ingeborg,  105. 

109  (a)  See  above,  n.  io7b.      (b)  Theiner,   Vet.  Mon.  Slav.  Merid.,  I, 
48,  No.  39  (Potth.,  993). 

110  (a)  Ibid.,  I,  48,  No.  62,  63;   58,  No.  85   (Potth.,   1387);   61,  No. 
197,  198  (Potth.,  1524);  63,  No.  261  (Potth.,  1600).     (b)  Gesta,  c.  52. 
(c)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  Ill,  20. 

111  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  Ill,  20. 

112  Gesta,  c.  52. 

113Hoveden,  Annal.  ad  an.  1200,  in  JRec.,  XVII,  604. 
114  Davidsohn,  Philipp  II  und Ingeborg^  104. 


APPENDIX 

regarded  the  sentence  from  the  beginning.115  The  Abbot  of 
S.  Germain  des  Pre"s  116  and  many  others  of  the  clergy  refused 
to  cease  from  services.117 

So  largely  was  the  interdict  violated  that  the  pontiff  deter- 
mined to  have  it  republished  under  severer  penalties.  Ac-  / 
cordingly,  in  March  he  addressed  himself  to  Walter,  Arch- 
bishop of  Rouen,  and  the  Bishop  of  Poitiers,  ordering  them  to 
reissue  the  sentence  of  interdict  on  the  realm  of  France ,  and 
to  cause  it  to  be  observed  by  all  prelates ;  to  investigate 
whether  any  had  disregarded  the  sentence,  and  to  report  to 
him.  If  any  should  disobey  after  this  new  publication,  their 
punishment  would  be  very  severe ;  those  who  had  disobeyed 
up  to  that  time  were  reserved  to  the  judgment  of  the  pope.118 
This  new  publication  of  the  sentence  seems  to  have  secured 
observance  :  Diceto  says  that  France  lay  under  interdict  from 
Mid-Lent,119  which  in  1200  fell  on  March  19,  seven  days  after 
the  letters  to  the  Archbishop  of  Rouen  and  the  Bishop  of 
Poitiers  were  issued.  Diceto's  statement  can  best  be  ex- 
plained on  the  ground  that  the  sentence  was  but  little  observed 
before  Mid-Lent. 

It  was  probably  the  new  publication  which  caused  Philip  in 
his  wrath  to  go  beyond  wise  bounds.  Not  content  with  afflict- 
ing the  clergy,  he  embittered  his  lay  subjects  by  demanding  a 
third  of  their  income  and  oppressing  them  with  other  intoler- 
able exactions.120  While  trying  by  means  of  repression  at 

115Registr.  Capitulor.  General.  Cisterc.  Ord.,  in  Bibl.  de  1'Arsenal 
(Paris),  MS.  926,  p.  142.  Chap.  Gen.,  1200,  48  and  51. 

116Theiner,   Vet.  Man.  Slav.  Merid.,  I,  62,  No.  221  (Potth.,  1551). 

117 Ibid.,  I,  61,  No.  197,  198  (Potth.,  1524). 

118  (a)  Inn.  Opp.,  IV,  58  (Potth.,  969).     (b)  See  also  below,  n.  119. 

119 Diceto,  Imagines,  in  Rec. ,  XVII,  659.  "Terra  regis  Franciae  sub 
interdicto  posita  est  ab  archiepiscopo  Rothomagensi  et  episcopo  Pictavensi 
de  praecepto  summi  pontificis,  .  .  .  et  mansit  sub  interdicto  a  media 
Quadragesima  usque  ad  festum  Sanctae  Mariae  Magdalenae;  ..." 

120  (a)  Chron.  de  S.  Denis,  ad  an.  1199,  in  Rec.,  XVII,  387.  (b) 
Rigord,  De  Gest.  Ph.  Aug.  ad  an.  1199,  in  Rec.,  XVII,  51.  (c)  Bibl. 
Nat.,  MS.  Fr.  17,264.  "II  [Philip]  manda  les  chevaliers  de  la  terre  et 
ses  hommes  et  puist  dians  le  tierch  de  chou,  que  leur  terre  ualoit  I  an, 
parcoi  il  pierdi  moult  leur  cuers." 


l  iS  THE  INTERDICT 

home  to  defeat  the  interdict,  Philip,  feeling  the  pressure  of 
public  opinion,121  was  doing  what  he  could  at  Rome  to  arrive 
at  the  same  end.  He  complained  to  the  pope  of  the  injustice 
of  the  interdict  on  two  grounds,  namely,  that  it  had  been  pro- 
mulgated in  spite  of  his  properly  made  appeal,  and  that  it  had 
been  actually  pronounced  beyond  the  confines  of  his  realm. 
These  technicalities  the  Roman  pontiff  easily  brushed  aside, 
by  explaining  that  the  legate  had  been  commanded  to  grant 
no  appeal,  and  that  the  instructions  given  to  Peter  of  Capua 
had  included  the  provinces  of  Vienne ,  Lyons,  and  Besancon  in 
his  jurisdiction ;  so  that  the  legate  was  still  within  his  jurisdic- 
tion, even  though  he  was  outside  of  the  kingdom  of  France. 
Moreover,  the  legate  was  not  the  creator  of  the  sentence  of 
interdict ;  he  was  only  its  publisher  in  the  place  of  the  pope , 
whose  jurisdiction  was  as  wide  as  Christendom.122  The  pope, 
however,  gave  Philip  some  hope  of  relaxation  ;  seeing  that  the 
monarch  had  remained  unmoved  thus  far,  the  pope  proposed 
to  relax  the  interdict  and  to  excommunicate  the  king  instead, 
saying,  "It  is  expedient  for  us,  that  one  man  should  die  for 
the  people,  and  that  the  whole  nation  perish  not."  The  plan 
was  most  welcome  to  Philip.  His  first  ambassador  was  unsuc- 
cessful ;  nevertheless  he  sent  another  requesting  that  the  sug- 
gestion be  put  into  execution.123  Philip's  eagerness  for  so 
slight  a  mitigation  furnishes  a  valuable  commentary  on  the 
strength  of  the  interdict.  To  him,  excommunication,  which 
cut  him  off  from  church  and  heaven,  seemed  preferable  to  a 
sentence  which  temporarily  deprived  his  subjects  of  the  minis- 
trations of  the  church.  The  former  was  a  personal  censure, 
the  effectiveness  of  which  depended  on  his  own  faith;  the 
effectiveness  of  the  latter  depended  on  the  faith  of  others, 
and  thus  became  a  strong  weapon  against  him.  The  pope 
perceived  this  as  clearly  as  did  the  king,  and  did  not  weaken 
his  cause. 

121  Gesta,  c.  53.     "...  rex  jam  non  valens   ecclesiasticae  severitatis 
sustinere  rigorem  .    .    .  ." 

122 C.  7.  X.  de  offic.  legati.  i.  30  (Potth.,  1074). 
1MHoveden,  Chron.  (R.  Ser.),  IV,  113. 


APPENDIX  T IQ 

The  effect  of  the  interdict,  which  caused  Philip  to  plead  for 
change  of  sentence,  demands  consideration;  Though  busi- 
ness was  not  prohibited  by  the  interdict,  it  is  natural  to  expect 
that  a  discipline  which  would  affect  the  entire  religious  life  of 
a  mediaeval  people  would  extend  its  influence  to  their  com- 
mercial activity.  Davidsohn  has  shown  that  churches  and 
monasteries  transacted  business  during  this  interdict.124  But 
his  evidence  was  not  designed  to  be  comparative ,  and  there- 
fore does  not  show  whether  business  was  decreased.  How- 
ever the  interdict  affected  the  course  of  business,  its  principal 
manifestations  were  always  in  religious  matters  ;  in  this  France 
was  no  exception.  The  Count  of  Ponthieu  withdrew  to  Rouen 
with  the  sister  of  Philip  Augustus  to  receive  the  nuptial  bene- 
diction ; 125  and  the  king's  son  Louis  went  to  Normandy  to  be 
married  to  Blanche  of  Castile.126  Marriages  were  solemnized 
at  graves  instead  of  altars.127.  The  chronicler  of  S.  Amand  was 
reminded  of  the  Babylonian  Captivity  by  the  various  afflictions 
of  the  church.12|xfne  people  clamored  against  their  monarch.12*"^ 
Bishop  Hugh  of  Lincoln,  who  was  traveling  on  the  continent 
at  the  time,  and  who  celebrated  mass  every  time  there  was  an 
opportunity,130  found  himself  deprived  of  that  privilege  in 
Capetian  lands ;  and  for  that  reason  he  diverted  his  way  to 
Citeaux  in  order  to  celebrate  solemn  mass  on  the  Assumption 
of  the  Virgin,  August  i5.131  Another  chronicler  tells  of  the 
sad  condition  of  the  church,  because  no  sacraments  or  services 
except  baptism  and  viaticum  were  celebrated  ;  monasteries  as 

124  Davidsohn,  Philipp  II  und  Ingeborg,  107-109. 

125Geraud,  in  Bibl.  de  l&cole  des  Chartes,  2me  serie,  I,  99. 

126Hoveden,  Annal.,  in  Rec.,  XVII,  604. 

137  Such  is  the  phrase,  in  speaking  of  this  interdict,  of  Hurter,  the  his- 
torian of  Pope  Innocent  and  his  times;  and,  though  he  mentions  no  sources, 
he  can  hardly  be  talking  at  random.  lie  means,  of  course,  that  marriages 
took  place  in  the  churchyard  instead  of  in  the  church. 

128Chron.  S.  Amandi,  in  Rec.,  XVIII,  592. 

129Gesta,  c.  53. 

30  Vita  S.  Hugonis  Lincolniensis,   lib.   V,  c.  xv  (A1.  Ser.)t  310,  312, 
326,  328,  329. 
324. 


120  THE  INTERDICT 

well  as  churches  ceased  from  services.  Burial  was  denied  the 
dead;  everywhere  in  the  kingdom  there  was  sadness,  for 
"the  organs  of  the  church  were  silent,  and  the  lips  of  those 
praising  the  Lord  were  closed."132  The  account  of  Cogge- 
shall  is  the  most  famous  :  "  O  what  a  horrible,  what  a  fright- 
ful sight  in  every  city  !  The  doors  of  churches  closed,  and 
entrance  denied  to  Christians  like  dogs ;  divine  offices  sus- 
pended ,  the  sacraments  of  the  body  and  the  blood  of  the  Lord 
unoffered ;  people  no  longer  coming  to  the  feasts  of  saints ; 
the  dead  deprived  of  the  rites  of  Christian  burial,  their  odors 
infecting  the  air,  and  the  horrible  sight  filling  the  minds  of  the 
living  with  terror."  133 

Whether  these  pictures  are  real  or  imaginary,  there  is  no 
doubt  that  Philip  suffered  no  little  inconvenience  from  the  in- 
terdict. He  complained  at  Rome  of  the  severity  of  Peter 
of  Capua ;  he  professed  to  be  willing  to  be  bound  by  the  oath 
of  any  of  his  agents,  and  promised  to  obey  whatever  sentence 
either  legates  or  judges  delegated  from  Rome  should  pro- 
nounce. The  response  of  the  pope  was  that  no  oath  to  obey 
would  be  necessary  for  the  relaxation  of  the  interdict,  if  Philip 
accepted  the  judgment  already  rendered,  namely  if  he  dis- 
missed Agnes  and  received  his  legitimate  wife ;  if  the  king 
submitted  to  a  papal  judgment  to  be  given  at  some  later  time 
regarding  the  validity  of  his  marriage  to  Ingeborg,  a  pledge 
would  be  accepted,  provided  that  for  the  interval  the  concu- 
bine gave  place  to  the  legitimate  wife.  This  reply  roused  all 
the  king's  anger,  but,  since  he  must  choose  a  way,  he  sum- 
moned several  ecclesiastical  and  secular  princes,  and  asked 
them  for  their  advice.  They  counseled  him  to  submit.  Turn- 
ing to  the  Archbishop  of  Reims  he  asked  :  "  Is  it  true  that  the 
pope  in  a  letter  to  you  has  spoken  of  my  divorce  as  a  farce 
rather  than  as  a  valid  affair?"  The  archbishop  responded 
that  such  was  the  case ,  whereupon  the  king  replied  :  '  *  Then 

132  Robt.  Altiss.,  Chronolog.  ad  an.  1199-1200,  in  Rec.,  XVIII,  263. 
138  Rad.  Coggesh.,  Chron.  ad  an.  1200,  in  JRec.,  XVIII,  91. 


APPENDIX 


121 


you,  who  pronounced  my  divorce,  are  a  fool  and  an  im- 
becile."134 

Abusive  language  did  not  ease  the  interdict,  though  it  may 
have  eased  the  king's  mind.  It  was  still  necessary  for  him  to 
get  the  most  favorable  terms  from  Rome.  He  therefore  sent 
to  Innocent,  requesting  him  to  remove  the  interdict  and  to 
try  the  matter  afterwards.  Frequent  messengers  to  Rome, 
prayers,  and  money,  were  all  of  no  avail  with  the  pope ; 135  he 
refused  to  remove  the  interdict  until  it  had  accomplished  its 
purpose.136  Philip  was  compelled  to  yield.137  Cardinal  Octa- 
vian  was  sent  to  France  to  arrange  for  a  settlement.138  He 
was  instructed  to  exact  full  and  entire  satisfaction  for  the  in- 
juries and  damages  done  ecclesiastics  who  had  observed  the 
interdict ;  to  secure  the  expulsion  of  Agnes  from  the  realm ; 
to  force  the  king  to  receive  Ingeborg,  and  to  give  oath  not  to 
separate  from  her  without  a  judgment  of  the  church ;  to  in- 
duce the  king,  if  possible,  to  treat  Ingeborg  with  affection ; 
and,  if  the  king  insisted  on  demanding  separation,  to  set  a 
hearing  for  six  months  later;  when  these  things  were  done, 
the  cardinal  was  to  raise  the  interdict,  reserving  to  the  pope 
the  punishment  of  all  disobedient  prelates.139  Octavian  was 
accompanied  by  the  Cardinal- presbyter  of  the  title  of  St. 
Priscus;  both  were  urged  to  be  exceedingly  careful  and 
patient,  and  to  show  no  partiality  in  deciding  about  the 
marriage  of  Philip. 

Octavian 's  coming  produced  great  joy  in  France.  To  some 
he  seemed  a  deliverer ;  he  was  met  at  various  stages  of  his 

134  Gesta,  c.  53. 

135  Rad.  Coggesh.,  Chron.,  in  Rec.,  XVIII,  91. 

136 The  pope,  however,  lightened  the  sentence  by  granting  privileges  to 
monasteries.  For  example:  (a)  Inn.  Opp.,  IV,  63,  No.  35  (Potth.,  1080). 
(b)  Ibid.,  64,  No.  36  (Potth.,  1079).  (c)  Arch.  Nat.,  L.  236.  A  privi- 
lege to  the  Templars. 

137  (a)  See  above,  n.  135.  (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  Ill,  17.  Philip  wrote, 
"  Noverit  sanctitas  vestra  quod  nos  ,  .  .  per  vim  vestram  et  per  mandatum 
vestrum  fecimus  .  .  .  quamvis  hoc  esset  contra  voluntatem  nostram. " 

138 Potth.,  1094,  1095,  1096,  1097,  I098>  1099,  i ioo,  noi,  1 102. 

139  Gesta,  c.  54. 


I22  THE  INTERDICT 

journey,  especially  at  Vezelai,  by  joyous  bands  of  people,  who 
blessed  him  and  believed  themselves  visited  by  God.  Princes 
and  nobles  welcomed  him ;  14°  even  Philip  joyfully  hastened  to 
meet  him  at  Sens,  received  him  with  humility,  and  treated 
him  with  honor.  There,  in  the  presence  of  many,141  the  king 
made  reparation  for  all  insults  of  the  clergy  and  for  their 
material  losses ; 142  he  restored  to  his  favor  the  Bishops  of 
Paris  and  Soissons.143  He  agreed  to  give  up  Agnes  and  not 
see  her  again  until  the  validity  of  his  divorce  was  determined. 
Another  meeting  was  arranged  to  take  place  at  St.  Le"ger-en- 
Iveline,  at  which  it  was  hoped  to  accomplish  the  reconcilia- 
tion. On  the  seventh  of  September  this  meeting  occurred. 
The  king  publicly  honored  Ingeborg,  and  by  proxy  took  the 
oath  demanded  of  him  by  the  church.  After  these  things 
were  done,  the  legate  solemnly  raised  the  interdict.141  Though 
the  story  of  Ingeborg  does  not  end  with  the  relaxation,  it  has 
no  further  purpose  here.  It  is  enough  to  note  that  Philip, 
despite  his  professions,  did  not  give  Ingeborg  his  favor  for 
many  years  ; 144  and  that  the  legate  Octavian  was  most  roundly 
dealt  with  by  the  pope  ,145  because  he  failed  to  obey  his  in- 
structions to  use  all  means  of  securing  a  reconciliation  between 
the  king  and  the  queen. 

The  relaxation  of  this  interdict,  which  had  lasted  thirty 
weeks,  produced  great  joy  in  France.146  Bells  were  rung,  and 
the  greatest  felicity  prevailed  among  the  people  and  the  clergy. 
It  is  related  that  over  three  hundred  were  killed  in  the  crowds 
that  celebrated  the  removal  of  the  interdict.147  The  Bishop  of 
Soissons  in  a  report  to  Rome  stated  that,  just  as  the  grief  of 

»« Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  Ill,  13,  15- 
141  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  Ill,  15. 

M2Cartul.  de  Notre  Dame  de  Paris,  I,  59  (Docs.  Inedits). 
143Dubois,  Hist.  Eccl.  Paris,  lib.  XIV,  c.  iii,  219. 
144  For  the  subsequent  history  of  Ingeborg,  see  Geraud,  in  Bibl.  dt 
?£cole  des  Chartes,  2me  serie,  I. 

145 Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  Ill,  16  (Potth.,  1150). 

146  (a)  Gesta,  c.  86.      (b)  Hoveden,  in  Rec.,  XVII,  6o8d. 

147  Capefigue,  Hist,  de  Ph.  Aug.,  II,  156. 


APPENDIX 


123 


the  people  over  the  interdict  had  been  so  great  as  to  be  in- 
expressible, so  their  joy  and  exultation  at  its  removal  was  the 
more  perfect.148  To  this  is  added  the  testimony  of  the  Bishop 
of  Paris,  that  the  faithful  grew  more  devout  in  their  praises  of 
the  Creator  upon  the  removal  of  their  distress.1*9  The  legate 
Octavian  found  it  impossible  to  describe  the  joy  which  filled 
the  kingdom  upon  relaxation  of  the  sentence.  The  people 
blessed  the  pope  and  sang  his  praises,  not  only  for  the  justice 
shown  the  unfortunate  queen,  but  also  for  his  mercy  in  re- 
moving the  interdict.150 

Those  prelates  who  had  refused  to  observe  the  interdict 
were  disciplined.  The  chapter-general  of  the  Cistercians 
ordered  that  those  abbots  who  had  attended  the  meeting  at 
Paris,  and  had  disregarded  the  interdict,  were  to  be  in  "  levi 
culpa  "  for  six  days,  and  for  one  day  of  the  six  they  were  to 
be  put  on  bread  and  water ;  m  those  who  had  not  convened  at 
Paris,  but  had  violated  the  interdict,  were  for  three  days  to  be 
in  "levi  culpa  ",  and  were  for  one  day  of  the  three  to  subsist 
on  bread  and  water.152  The  ecclesiastics  who  had  not  ob- 
served the  interdict  from  the  beginning  incurred  suspension, 
and  their  punishment  was  reserved  to  the  pope.  The  Arch- 
bishop of  Reims,  the  Bishops  of  Chartres,  Orleans,  Meaux, 
Auxerre ,  Noyon ,  and  Beauvais,  and  several  abbots  were  com- 
pelled to  appear  in  Rome  in  person.  Several  bishops,  because 
of  age  and  ill-health,  were  excused  from  going  to  Rome ; 1:"': 
these  and  those  abbots  who  could  not  go  were  permitted  to 
send  deputies.  At  Rome  they  all  gave  a  public  oath  to  obey 
what  the  pontiff  should  command  ;  whereupon  they  were  ab- 
solved from  suspension,  but  the  pope  reserved  the  right  to 

148  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  Ill,  14. 

149  Ibid.,  13. 

150  Ibid.,  15. 

151  Registr.  Capitulor.  General.  Cisterc.  Ord.,  in  Bibl.  de  P  Arsenal,  MS. 
926,  p.  142,  Chap.  Gen.,  1200,  48. 

™  Ibid.,  Chap.  Gen.,  1200,  51. 

153  These  were  probably  the  Bishops  of  Laon  and  T6rouanne.  See 
Potth.,  1600. 


INTERDICT 

punish  them  at  his  discretion.154  The  lesser  clergy  who  had 
failed  to  heed  the  interdict  were  not  forgotten.  Innocent 
gave  Philip,  Bishop  of  Beauvais,  the  power  to  receive  an  oath 
of  obedience  from  all  abbots,  priors,  and  prelates  of  his  dio- 
cese who  were  guilty  of  violation.155  It  is  probable  that  simi- 
lar orders  went  to  other  bishops. 

Circumstances  brought  fitting  punishment  to  Hugh  Noyers, 
Bishop  of  Auxerre,  who,  at  the  very  time  that  he  was  trying  to 
enforce  an  episcopal  interdict  on  his  own  diocese,  refused  to 
observe  the  papal  interdict  on  France.  The  death  of  Michael, 
Archbishop  of  Sens,  occurred  in  November,  1199.  Later  the 
canons  of  Sens  unanimously  elected  Hugh  Noyers  to  the 
vacancy,  and  the  king  gave  his  consent.  But  the  pope,  re- 
membering that  Hugh  was  one  of  those  bishops  who  not  only 
disregarded  the  interdict,  but  was  also  present  at  that  meeting 
which  decided,  for  reasons  considered  frivolous  by  Innocent, 
that  it  ought  not  to  be  observed,  canceled  the  election ;  for 
the  pope  regarded  it  as  unfitting  that  a  bishop  who  had  de- 
liberately despised  papal  orders  should  be  elected  by  those 
who  had  kept  the  interdict  as  faithfully  as  had  the  canons  of 
Sens.  Hugh  wrote  to  Innocent  what  seemed  to  the  latter  to 
be  an  accusation  rather  than  an  exculpation.  He  said  that, 
on  account  of  papal  wrath,  he  was  reduced  to  the  greatest 
confusion  and  abjection ;  that  he  was  pointed  at  with  fingers , 
as  one  who  had  not  fought  honorably,  but  had  deserted  and 
joined  the  enemy ;  he  asserted  that  he  would  rather  die  than 
live  thus.  He  also  assured  the  sovereign  pontiff  that  he  did 
not  write  these  things  because  of  any  ambition  by  which  he 
hoped  to  ascend  to  some  higher  rank,  but  because  he  hoped 
to  escape  the  derision  in  which  he  was  held.  These  reasons 
did  not  prevail  with  the  stern  Innocent  to  acknowledge  the 

154  Gesta,  c.  57. 

155  Mscr.  in  Beauvais  (Cartul.  de  S.  Pierre  de  Beauvais.)?  p.  89,  tit.  329. 
"  Attendens  apostolica  sedes  ....     Dat.   Anagnie,  nonis  Novembris." 
The  year  is  not  given,  but  the  letter  very  probably  has  to  do  with  the  inter- 
dict of  1200. 


APPENDIX  12$ 

election;  he  did,  however,  grant  the  petitioner  absolution 
from  suspension.156  William  of  Dijon  had  a  similar  experi- 
ence. He  was  at  first  influenced  by  threats  to  disregard  the 
interdict,  but  after  a  time  obeyed  the  mandate  of  the  church.157 
Later  he  was  elected  to  the  Archbishopric  of  Bourges.  The 
circumstances  were  so  much  like  those  of  Hugh  Noyers  that 
Innocent  realized  the  danger  of  being  accused  of  partiality, 
should  he  agree  to  the  election.  There  seemed  to  him,  how- 
ever, to  be  a  distinction  between  those  who  had  erred  from 
contempt  and  those  who  had  erred  from  ignorance  ;  and  on 
this  ground  he  decided  to  confer  on  William  the  pallium,  pro- 
vided that  he  purge  himself  by  oath  of  his  contempt,  that  he 
obey  whatever  the  pope  enjoin  for  those  faults  which  grew 
out  of  ignorance,  and  that  he  issue  letters  patent  to  that 
effect.158  The  Bishop  of  Arras,  on  the  contrary,  was  particu- 
larly faithful  in  observing  the  interdict,159  and  it  was  probably 
for  this  reason  that  the  pope  favored  him  with  privileges  in 
the  bull  which  begins  :  ' '  Since  recently ,  in  the  day  of  the 
battle  for  the  house  of  the  Lord,  you  opposed  yourself  like  an 
impregnable  wall  against  a  charge  from  without,  so  much  the 
more  willingly  do  we  show  you  apostolic  favor,  as  we  have  in 
this  affair  experienced  your  obedience  and  steadfastness. ' '  16° 
58  Brittany,  1200. 

The  only  notice  of  this  interdict  is  in  a  papal  letter  of  May 
12,  1 200,  in  which  the  pontiff  answered  the  question  whether 
certain  things  might  be  done  ' '  during  the  interdict  laid  on  the 
whole  of  Brittany  ".  The  Abb£  Chauffier  in  an  article  on  this 
"  Lettre  in£dite  d' Innocent  III  "  is  of  the  opinion  that  this  in- 
terdict of  1 200  had  no  connection  with  that  of  France,  and 
surmises  that  it  was  laid  because  the  clergy  of  Dol  refused  to 

156  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  Ill,  20.      (b)  Gesta,  c.  56. 

157  Hist.  Archiepisc.  Bituricensium,  in  Labbe,  Nova  Bibl.,  II  (1657), 
99ff- 

158 Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  Ill,  43  (Potth.,  1249). 

159  Andrens.  Chron.,  cited  by  Hurter,  Innocenz  III,  I,  381,  n.  188, 

"°Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  Ill,  25. 


I26  THE  INTERDICT 

accept  a  papal  order  of  June,  1199,  subjecting  their  diocese 
to  the  Archbishop  of  Tours.161  He  suggests  that  some  of  the 
prelates  of  Brittany  probably  desired  to  execute  this  sentence 
in  all  of  its  details,  which  got  them  into  difficulties  so  serious 
that  they  were  obliged  to  appeal  to  Rome  for  explanations ; 
and  that  the  above-mentioned  letter  is  the  response  to  their 
inquiry.162  It  was  asked  whether  viaticum,  extreme  unction, 
and  burial  of  the  dead  were  to  be  allowed  for  clerks  and  lay- 
men ;  whether  divine  offices  could  be  celebrated  in  conventual 
churches  with  voices  subdued  and  doors  closed,  interdicted 
persons  being  excluded ;  and  whether  penance  was  to  be  as- 
signed to  those  assuming  the  cross  or  visiting  the  shrines  of 
saints.  The  pope  answered  that  viaticum  was  granted  to  the 
truly  penitent,  and  that  he  conceded  as  a  special  favor  that 
clerks  who  had  observed  the  interdict  might  be  buried  in  the 
cemetery  of  the  church  in  silence,  without  solemnity  and  the 
sound  of  bells.  In  conventual  churches,  clerks  by  twos  and 
threes  might  recite,  not  chant,  canonical  hours,  with  doors 
closed  and  voice  so  subdued  as  not  to  be  heard  outside,  inter- 
dicted persons  being  excluded.  Regulars  were  given  their 
usual  privileges.  Crusaders  and  other  pilgrims  were  allowed 
to  have  confession  when  they  demanded  it.  This  answer  was 
clearly  not  the  end  of  the  matter,  for  on  December  17,  1201 , 
Arthur,  Duke  of  Brittany,  agreed  to  execute  the  papal  sen- 
tence subjecting  Dol  to  Tours.  But  whether  even  this  made 
an  end  of  the  long  struggle  of  the  Bretons  to  be  ecclesiastically 
independent  of  France  is  not  yet  surely  known ;  and  the  dura- 
tion of  the  interdict  must  remain  likewise  uncertain. 
59  Le  Mam,  1200-1205. 

An  interdict  was  laid  on  the  city  of  Le  Mans,  either  by  its 
bishop  or  by  the  dean  or  chapter,  because  of  some  excesses  of 

lei  Wendover,  Flor.  Hist,  ad  an.  1199  (^.  Ser.~),  I,  291. 

162  (a)  Bibl.  de  r£cole  des  Charles,  XXXIII,  595-605.  (b)  It  may  be 
added  that  the  title  of  this  article  is  misleading,  for  the  substance  of  this 
papal  letter,  with  the  exception  of  the  reference  to  the  interdict  of  Brittany, 
has  long  since  been  published  in  the  Corpus  juris  canonici  :  C.  II.  X. 
de  poenit.  5.  38  (Potth.,  5042). 


APPENDIX 


127 


the  secular  power.  The  canons  of  St.  Peter  de  Curia  disre- 
garded the  sentence,  and,  though  all  others  ceased  from  ser- 
vices, they  boldly  rang  their  bells  and  performed  ecclesiastical 
rites  with  wide-open  doors  for  all  except  excommunicated  and 
interdicted  persons.  The  matter  being  brought  to  the  notice 
of  Octavian,  who  acted  as  legate  in  those  parts  from  the 
year  1200,  he  decided  against  the  canons  of  St.  Peter.  After- 
wards (1204-1205)  on  account  of  trouble  with  political 
powers,  the  city  was  again  interdicted,  and  again  the  canons, 
in  spite  of  notice  to  cease,  celebrated  with  unusual  solemnity. 
This  time  the  difference  was  carried  to  Rome,  where  the  pro- 
curator of  the  disobedient  canons  justified  their  action  by 
pleading  the  prescriptive  independence  of  the  church  of  St. 
Peter  de  Curia,  which  exempted  it  from  interdicts.  The  pon- 
tiff regarded  this  plea  as  dangerous  to  the  discipline  of  the 
church,  declared  the  privilege  invalid,  and  ordered  the  canons 
to  observe  the  interdict  strictly,  as  far  as  they  were  not  ex- 
empted by  privileges  ordinarily  extended  in  time  of  interdict. 
The  subsequent  history  of  the  interdict  is  unknown.18* 
60  Lands  of  Nicolas  de  Rumigny,  1200—1203. 

Nicolas  de  Rumigny  molested  the  canons  of  Reims  in  vari- 
ous ways,  his  prime  offence  being  the  seizure  of  their  forest 
lands.  After  being  repeatedly  and  uselessly  warned  by  Wil- 
liam, Archbishop  of  Reims,  he  was  finally  excommunicated, 
and  his  household  and  lands  were  put  under  interdict  at  the 
request  of  the  chapter.  In  order  to  make  the  sentence  effec- 
tive ,  all  priests  were  commanded  to  leave  the  district  affected , 
the  Hospitalers  were  forbidden  to  celebrate  services,  an 
ambulatory  interdict  was  to  follow  Nicolas  in  his  movements, 
and  the  sentence  was  confirmed  by  the  legate  Octavian  some- 
time after  August,  i2Oo.164  The  Hospitalers  refused  to  observe 

168  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VIII,  213,  212  (Potth.,  2675,  2679). 

16*Varin,  Arch.  Adm.  de  Rcims>  I,  ii,  437-438.  The  mention  of  the 
legate  helps  to  fix  the  date.  Octavian  was  dispatched  to  France  in  July, 
1200  (Potth.,  1094,  1 102),  and  met  the  king  at  Sens  on  August  27.  On 
September  7,  he  was  at  St.  Leger-en-Iveline,  where  he  relaxed  the  inter- 


I2g  THE  INTERDICT 

the  sentence,  on  which  account  the  canons  complained  of 
them  at  Rome,  and  on  January  21,  1201,  Innocent  rebuked 
them  and  ordered  them  not  to  go  beyond  their  privileges.165 
Nicolas  made  peace166  with  the  church  in  February  of  1203, 
and  gave  a  charter  for  the  reparation  of  damage  done.  The 
charter  does  not  mention  the  interdict,  but  in  the  absence  of 
any  other  evidence  it  is  probable  that  the  interdict  was  relaxed 
at  that  time. 

61  Lands  of  Roger  de  Rozoy ,  1200—1203. 

In  the  papal  letter  of  January,  1201,  not  only  the  lands  of 
Nicolas  "de  Ruminiaco  "  but  those  of  Roger  "de  Rose  to  " 
(Rozoy-sur-Serre)  are  said  to  be  under  interdict.167 

62  Lands  of  Nicolas  de  Rozoy,  i2OO?-i2ii.™ 

Nicolas  de  Rozoy  was  a  younger  brother  of  Roger.  As  he 
tells  us,  at  his  submission,  that  he  has  "long"  been  under 
excommunication  by  the  church  of  Reims  and  his  lands  under 
interdict  for  wrongs  to  the  canons,  it  is  not  impossible  that  he 

diet  on  France  (Bibl.  de  F  fccole  des  Chartes,  2me  s£rie,  I,  95-98).  It  was 
no  doubt  after  that  time  that  he  confirmed  the  sentence  of  the  Archbishop 
of  Reims.  This  cannot  have  been  late  in  1200,  for  in  January,  1201,  upon 
complaint  from  Reims,  Innocent  commanded  the  Hospitalers  to  observe 
the  interdict. 

165  Varin,  Arch.  Adm.  de  Reims,  I,  ii,  435  (Potth.,  1248).     Varin  gives 
the  year  in  the  margin  as  1200;  but  this  is  a  palpable  error  in  reckoning. 

166  The  charter  is  printed  in  Varin,  Arch.  Adm.  de  Reims,  I,  ii,  450. 
During  the  year  1201,  Nicolas  wrote  a  letter  to  the  canons  to  justify  himself 
for  hanging  a  man,  and  offered  amends  (Varin,  Arch.  Adm.  de  Reims,  I, 
ii,  448,  449);  but  this  can  hardly  be  taken  as  a  submission,  which  pro- 
duced relaxation  of  the  interdict;  for  in  the  charter  of  1203  Nicolas  men- 
tions the  hanging  among  the  things  for  which  he  is  making  amends. 

167  (a)  Inn.  Opp.,  IV,  57,  No.  28  (Potth.,  1248).      (b)  From  a  charter 
of  Roger  de  Roseto,  1205  (Varin,  Arch.  Adm.  de  Reims,  I,  ii,  459,  454), 
it  appears  that   Roger  was  in  controversy  with  the  cathedral  chapter  at 
Reims,  the  same  with  which  Nicolas  of  Rumigny  had  been  in  disagreement 
{ibid.,  450).     Rigordus  relates  that  in   1201   King  Philip,  who,  in  Dec., 
1 20 r,  took  under  his  express  protection  the  canons  of  Reims  (Varin,  Arch. 
Adm.  de  Reims,  I,  ii,  p.  448;    Delisle,  Cat.  des  actes  de  Ph.  Aug.,  No. 
691),  intended  to  attack  Roger  de  Roseto  for  harming  the  church,  where- 
upon Roger  made  his  submission  and  agreed  to  make  reparation.     {Rec., 
XVII,  54;  cf.  Guill.  Armor.,  Philippis,  I,  in  Rec.,  XVII,  133-134.) 

168  Varin,  Arch.  Adm.  de  Reims,  I,  ii,  480;  cf.  ibid.,  i,  387-391.     The 
date  of  the  charter  is  January,  1211. 


APPENDIX  I2g 

was  included  in  the  same  interdict  with  Roger ;  and  both  may 
have  been  laid  under  interdict  at  the  same  time  as  Nicholas 
de  Rumigny. 

63  St.  Omer,  about  1201. 

The  citizens  of  St.  Omer  had  a  dispute  with  the  Abbey  of 
St.  Bertin  regarding  some  marsh-lands.  In  1198  Innocent 
appointed  commissioners  to  settle  the  quarrel,  and  a  few 
months  later  he  urged  the  burgesses  to  give  the  abbey  satis- 
faction. The  efforts  of  the  papal  agents  were  apparently 
futile,  for  in  August,  1200,  a  confirmation  of  the  Count  of 
Flanders  made  known  that  Arnoul,  steward  of  Te"rouanne,  and 
fifty  other  persons  who  had  been  chosen  to  terminate  the  dif- 
ference between  the  abbey  and  the  citizens,  had  divided  the 
disputed  meadows  between  the  two  parties.169  This,  however, 
did  not  settle  the  matter,  and  the  resistance  of  the  citizens 
brought  upon  them  a  sentence  of  "  excommunication"  laid  on 
papal  authority  by  the  Bishop  and  Archdeacon  of  Arras.  The 
citizens  paid  no  heed  to  the  sentence,  whereupon  orders  were 
issued  by  the  curia  to  the  Dean  and  the  Archdeacon  of  Amiens 
to  cause  the  sentence  to  be  inviolably  observed  until  sufficient 
satisfaction  was  made.170  The  surviving  evidence  leads  one  to 
believe  that  this  order  was  also  fruitless.  In  1202  the  Count 
of  Flanders  proposed  to  go  to  the  Holy  Land,  whereupon  his 
bailiffs  were  warned  by  the  curia  to  allow  no  harm  to  come  to 
the  abbey.  The  Count  himself  secured  from  the  abbey  a 
promise  to  postpone  the  settlement  of  the  quarrel  for  three 
years  until  his  return  from  Jerusalem.171  Meantime  St.  Omer 
lay  under  interdict ;  when  the  sentence  was  laid  or  by  whom 
is  nowhere  stated.  Indeed  the  only  indisputable  reference  to 
interdict  throughout  the  whole  disagreement  is  contained  in  a 
communication  of  Innocent  to  the  abbots  of  Blagny  and 

1MHaignerg,  Les   chartes  de  S.   Bcrtin,  I,   185,  No.  425,  427;    188, 
No.  433. 

170  Inn.  Opp.,  IV,  80  (Potth.,  1422). 

171  Haigner6,  Les  charter,  I,  200,  No.  456,  457, 


130 


THE  INTERDICT 


Auchy  and  the  prior  of  Hesdin,  which  states  that,  though  the 
citizens  were  excommunicated  and  the  town  was  interdicted 
on  papal  authority,  the  canons  of  St.  Omer  in  the  diocese  of 
Terouanne  celebrated  services  in  the  presence  of  excommuni- 
cates. Every  attempt  to  settle  failed;  the  dispute  dragged 
on  with  varying  hostility  until  1247  or  1248,  when  the  Count 
of  Artois  put  an  enforced  end  to  it  by  recognizing  the  claims 
of  the  citizens  in  part,  and  obliging  the  abbey  to  accept  the 
terms.1"  What  became  of  the  interdict  is  not  known ;  it  may 
have  continued  to  the  final  settlement,  or  may  have  been  re- 
moved long  before,  as  far  as  any  existing  evidence  goes. 
Probably  the  interdict  went  hand  in  hand  with  the  excom- 
munication, which,  already  twice  issued,  was  republished  in 
February,  i203.m  A  papal  letter  of  September,  1204,  shows 
that  at  some  previous  time  the  ecclesiastics  were  forced  by  the 
Count  of  Namur  m  and  the  bailiffs  of  the  Count  of  Flanders  to 
relax  the  excommunication  temporarily.175 

64  Limoges,  1202-1203. 

In  the  course  of  the  continental  wars  of  Henry  II  and  his 
sons  the  walls  of  Limoges  had  been  damaged.  The  citizens 
attempted  to  fix  the  burden  of  building  and  repairing  the  walls 
and  moats  upon  the  monks  of  S.  Martial.  The  abbot,  Hugh 
de  Brosse,  supported  by  the  bishop,  firmly  opposed  the  de- 
mand made  upon  the  monastery  and  declared  himself  ready  to 
have  the  matter  heard  in  court.  The  burgesses  thereupon  re- 
sorted to  violence  ;  they  seized  and  damaged  the  property  of  the 
monks  and  inflicted  much  harm  and  injury  upon  them.  Some- 
time before  October  6, 1202 ,  the  bishop  put  an  interdict  on  the 
city,  and,  when  some  of  the  clergy  disregarded  the  sentence,  he 

172  (a)  Giry,  Hist,  de  la  Ville  de  St.  Omer,  138,  n.  3;    139.      Cf.  Rec.. 
XIX,  470.     (b)  Haignere,  Les  Chartes  de  S.  Bertin,  I,  199-200,  No.  455. 

173  Ibid.,  204,  No.  465. 

174  The  Count  of  Namur  was  threatened  with  interdict  in  April,  1204; 
perhaps  this  gave  him  sympathy  for  the  burgesses  of  St.  Omer  and  caused 
him  to  interfere.     Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VII,  45. 

175  Rec.,  XIX,  470. 


APPENDIX  I3I 

condemned  them  to  suspension  and  excommunication.176  Later 
Innocent  III  instructed  the  Archbishop  of  Bourges  and  the 
Bishop  of  Cahors,  and  in  another  letter  the  Archbishop  of 
Bourges  and  his  suffragan  bishops,  to  confirm  the  sentence  of 
the  Bishop  of  Limoges,  if  lawfully  laid,  and  to  force  its  ob- 
servance in  the  whole  province  of  Bourges.177  This  was  done 
and  civil  war  raged  in  the  city ;  the  bishop  ordered  a  daily 
renewal  of  his  malediction  upon  the  consuls  and  the  disobe- 
dient priests.  Garments  were  not  given  the  poor  that  year  on 
Maundy  Thursday,  but  the  price  of  these  was  distributed  to 
many  paupers. 176d  The  burgesses  appealed  to  Rome  against 
the  sentence  of  the  Archbishop  of  Bourges,  but  the  pope  de- 
cided against  them  m  and  they  went  to  worse  excesses  than 
before,  becoming  so  violent  that  the  abbot  was  obliged  to 
leave  the  city.178  It  was  even  preached  in  churches  that  ex- 
communicates need  not  fear  to  perform  ecclesiastical  mmistia- 
tions.  The  citizens  expelled  the  monks  of  S.  Martial,  took 
their  remaining  property,  and  punished  by  fines  matrons  and 
other  persons  who  from  conscientious  scruples  absented  them- 
selves from  services  held  by  excommunicated  priests,  or  who 
refused  to  receive  the  host  from  their  hands  on  Easter-day. 

178  (a)  The  date  for  this  interdict  is  taken  from  the  statement  of  Varia 
Chron.  Fragment,  ad  an.  1202,  that  in  the  monastery  of  St.  Salvator  there 
were  no  services  from  the  feast  of  St.  Pardulphus,  October  6th,  to  July  22nd. 
The  latter  date  meets  very  well  the  requirements  of  the  papal  letter  and  the 
charter  of  the  Bishop  of  Limoges.  The  interdict  was  in  force  March  30 
(Chron.  B.  Iterii,  in  Duples-Agier,  Chroniq.  de  S.Martial  de  Limoges,  p. 
68);  and  on  Easter,  April  4  (Epp.,  VI,  97).  The  former  date  is  made 
somewhat  doubtful  by  the  fact  that  from  the  Varia  Chron.  Frag,  the  cap- 
ture of  the  Viscount  of  Limoges  seems  to  occur  during  the  interdict;  and, 
unless  more  than  one  viscount  was  captured,  that  occurrence  took  place 
before  September  7,  1202  {Rot.  Pat.,  I,  i,  18).  It  is  therefore  possible 
that  the  interdict  began  before  October  6.  (b)  Lasteyrie,  l?Abbaye  de  S. 
Martial  de  Limoges,  121.  Just  when  this  damage  was  done  is  hardly  as- 
certainable.  War  was  in  progress  in  the  autumn  of  1202,  for  about  Sep- 
tember of  that  year  the  Viscount  of  Limoges  was  captured  by  the  consuls 
of  the  city,  who  adhered  to  John;  Rot.  Pat.,  I,  i,  18.  (c)  Rec.,  XVIII, 
226,  n.  b.  (d)  Varia  Chron.  Fragment,  ad  an.  1202,  in  Duples-Agier, 
Chroniq.,  192-193.  From  this  source  the  cessation  seems  to  have  been 
voluntary. 

177 Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  97  (Potth.,  1934). 

178  Lasteyrie,  L>  Abbaye  de  S.  Martial  de  Limoges  t  114. 


132 


THE  INTERDICT 


On  June  8,  1203,  the  pope  instructed  the  Archbishop  of 
Bourges  and  the  Bishop  of  Cahors  that,  if  the  disobedient 
clerks  did  not  yield  obedience  within  a  month,  they  should  be 
deprived  of  their  benefices  ;  and  if  that  did  not  accomplish  its 
purpose  they  should  be  degraded.179  This  papal  order  had 
speedy  effect,  for  the  burgesses  and  monks  came  to  an  agree- 
ment attested  by  the  bishop,  in  which  the  former  made  repa- 
ration for  damage  done,  and  agreed  thereafter  to  resort  to 
judicial  procedure  in  similar  cases.180  Though  nothing  was 
said  of  the  interdict,  it  was  probably  removed  at  the  same  time. 
65  York  and  Beverly,  1200-1201. 

When  John  went  to  the  continent  in  1200,  he  ordered 
Geoffrey,  Archbishop  of  York,  to  attend  him.  The  arch- 
bishop refused  and  also  hindered  John's  emissaries  from  col- 
lecting a  carucage  in  the  province  of  York.  In  addition  he 
laid  the  whole  province  of  York  under  an  interdict.  For  these 
reasons  John  ordered  him  to  be  deprived  of  his  possessions. 
Geoffrey  retaliated  by  excommunicating  the  king's  partisans ; 
and  at  the  same  time  laid  an  interdict  on  the  town  of 
Beverly,  the  inhabitants  of  which  had  broken  into  the  arch- 
bishop's park.181  Wishing  to  avoid  serious  difficulty,  John  or- 
dered the  archbishop's  estates  restored  on  condition  that  the 
archbishop  should  answer  for  his  offence  in  the  king's  court, 
and  pay  three  thousand  marks  which  he  owed  King  Richard. 
A  settlement  did  not  immediately  follow ;  indeed  the  events  of 
John's  visit  at  Beverly  in  January,  1201,  threatened  complete 
estrangement.  The  canons  of  Beverly  wished  to  receive  the 
king  with  a  procession  and  the  sound  of  bells,  but  this  was 
forbidden  them.  The  king  was  entertained  by  an  excommu- 
nicate.182 Though  such  treatment  angered  the  king,  it  did  not 
prevent  a  settlement;  this  came  by  Mid-Lent  of  1201,  when 

179  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  97  (Potth.,  1934). 

180  Rec.,  XVIII,  226,  n.  b. 
18lHoveden,  (R,  Ser.},  IV,  139-140. 

56. 


APPENDIX  I33 

the  king  and  archbishop  met  at  York  and  the  latter  purchased 
favor  by  paying  a  fine.  In  May,  John  restored  to  his  brother 
the  properties  in  return  for  a  promise  of  a  money  payment. 
Though  not  mentioned,  the  interdicts  were,  no  doubt,  relaxed 
at  that  time.188 

66  Cremona,  1 201,  and  1203-1204. 

The  citizens  of  Cremona  were  put  under  interdict  because 
they  vexed  their  bishop  and  clergy  with  tallages,  and  otherwise 
oppressed  them.  The  sentence  is  called  an  excommunication 
in  one  bull,  but  that  it  was  an  interdict  appears  from  a  letter 
of  November,  1201,  to  the  Bishop  of  Cremona  which  granted 
that  he  might  celebrate  ecclesiastical  offices  because  he  had 
taken  the  cross,  notwithstanding  the  interdict  under  which  his 
city  was  laboring.184  This  interdict  is  perhaps  the  same  as 
that  of  1203-1204,  though  no  positive  proof  of  connection  be- 
tween the  two  has  been  found.  The  interdict  existing  in  1203 
grew  out  of  a  disagreement  between  the  citizens  of  Cremona 
and  the  monks  of  St.  Sixtus,  and  was  laid  by  the  Bishop  of 
Modena.  The  sentence  was  not  observed  by  all  priests  ;  some 
of  them  even  conducted  public  services.  In  February,  1203, 
Innocent  ordered  the  Bishop  of  Modena  to  renew  the  sentence 
of  interdict,  to  suspend  all  clerks  who  violated  it,  to  deprive 
them  of  their  livings,  and  to  force  them  to  appear  before  the 
pope.  In  1204  the  contending  parties  came  to  an  agreement 
in  Innocent's  presence,  and  he  ordered  the  Bishop  of  Parma 
to  relax  the  sentence.185 

67  Genoa  >  about  1202. 

When  this  interdict  was  laid  cannot  be  determined  ;  it  prob- 

183  (a)  Jbid.y  139-140,  157,  163.  (b)  Stubbs,  preface  to  Hoveden,  IV. 
(c)  Wendover,  Flor.  Hist,  ad  an.  1200  (R.  Ser.},  I,  301.  (d)  Prynne's 
Records,  II,  230-231. 

184Theiner,  Vet.  Mon.  Slav.  Merid.,  I,  61,  No.  200  (Potth.,  1526), 
No.  201  f Potth.,  1527). 

185  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  13  (Potth.,  1846);  VIII,  163  (Potth.,  2338); 
X,  143  (Potth.,  3205).  (b)  The  trouble  was  not  permanently  ended.  If 
the  comment  to  the  letter  printed  in  Pflugk-Harttung,  Iter  Italicum,  516- 
517,  may  be  believed,  the  same  dispute  was  alive  in  1226. 


I34  THE  INTERDICT 

ably  grew  out  of  a  dispute  between  Archbishop  Boniface  and 
the  canons  of  Genoa,  which  was  settled  on  May  30,  1201,  by 
commissioners  of  Innocent  III.  The  interdict  may  have  been 
removed  at  the  same  time ;  it  certainly  was  removed  sometime 
before  November,  1202.  The  revenues  of  the  chapter  in 
Genoa  were  so  considerably  diminished  by  the  interdict  that 
it  was  necessary  to  adopt  remedial  measures ;  and  it  was  there- 
fore determined  that  any  prebends  which  fell  vacant  should 
not  be  reassigned,  and  that  the  income  derived  from  them 
should  be  applied  to  the  common  use.  Later  four  prebends 
became  vacant,  and  the  archbishop  assigned  one  of  them  on 
the  ground  of  prescriptive  right.  After  the  interdict  was  re- 
laxed the  canons  challenged  the  act  of  the  archbishop  and  car- 
ried the  matter  to  Rome.  Innocent  ruled  that  several  of  the 
prebends  had  been  vacant  so  long  that  the  right  of  appoint- 
ment belonged  to  him  rather  than  to  the  chapter  of  the  arch- 
bishop. These  circumstances  give  some  idea  of  the  duration 
of  an  otherwise  obscure  interdict.186 
68  Armenia,  1203  (1204). 

The  interdict  of  Armenia  is  an  episode  in  the  quarrels  of 
the  crusaders.  It  resulted  from  a  dispute  between  Leo  of 
Armenia  and  Boemund  of  Antioch  over  the  possession  of  An- 
tioch.  Boemund  III  of  Antioch  had  two  sons,  Raymond  III 
and  Boemund  of  Antioch.  Raymond  married  the  sister  of 
Leo,  King  of  Armenia,  and  by  her  had  a  son,  Rupino,  whom 
he  acknowledged  to  be  his  rightful  successor.  When  Ray- 
mond died,  about  1200,  his  brother  Boemund  disputed 
Rupino's  claim  and  Leo  supported  his  nephew  Rupino.187  In 

186  (a)  This  interdict  probably  grew  out  of  the  dispute  between  Arch- 
bishop Boniface  and  the  canons  of  Genoa,  which  was  settled  in  1201,  May 
30,  by  commissioners  of  Innocent  III.     Ughelli,  It.  Sacra,  IV,  col.  881- 
882.     (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  V,  123  (Potth.,  1780). 

187  (a)  I  have  not  been  able  to  verify  my  belief  that  this  interdict  occurred 
in  1203.     That  it  was  in  1203  or  1204  is  clear  from  the  following.     The 
legates  attested  letters  at  Rome  in  March,  1202  (Potth.,  1644).     They  were 
sent  to  the  East  in  the  same  year  (see  below,  n.  189).     They  cannot  have 
reached  the  Holy  Land  early  enough  to  have  had  their  quarrel  with  Leo  of 
Armenia  and  to  have  made  peace  by  September,  1202.     This  makes  it  very 


APPENDIX  I35 

1 201,  Leo  subjected  himself  to  Rome  and  sought  the  privilege 
that  no  one  excommunicate  him  or  interdict  his  lands  without 
permission  from  Rome.188  Innocent  granted  this  privilege. 
When  the  dispute  in  the  East  became  serious,  Innocent  sent 
two  legates,  Soffridus,  Cardinal-presbyter  of  the  title  of  St. 
Praxedis,  and  Peter,  Cardinal-presbyter  of  the  title  of  St. 
Marcellus,  to  secure  peace. m  The  quarrel  of  the  princes  was 
aggravated  when  the  Templars  gave  their  support  to  Boemund. 
The  King  of  Armenia  in  revenge  confiscated  their  property. 
The  legates  vainly  tried  to  secure  an  agreement  between  the 
king  and  the  Templars.  One  of  them,  Peter,  finally  called  a 
council ;  and ,  though  the  Catholicus  of  the  Armenians  and  the 
Bishop  of  Antioch  were  absent,  laid  an  interdict  on  Leo's 
lands,  in  spite  of  his  appeal  to  Rome  made  on  the  ground  of 
the  privilege  previously  granted.190  The  prelates  of  Armenia 
held  a  convention,  and  decided  that  the  sentence  need  not  be 
observed  because  the  Catholicus  had  not  been  present  when 
the  sentence  was  laid,  and  had  therefore  not  given  his  assent.191 
The  king  complained  of  the  legates192  and  requested  their 
recall,  which  came  later.  In  the  meantime  a  convention  was 
held  at  Acre  in  September,  1203  or  1204,  and  there  the  king 
agreed  to  abide  by  the  award  of  the  legates ;  whereupon  peace 
was  made.  It  is  likely  that  the  interdict,  which  had  probably 
never  been  observed,  was  removed  at  the  same  time.198 

probable  that  the  interdict  fell  in  a  later  year.  It  must  have  been  before 
1205,  for  by  March  of  1205  the  legates  had  already  left  Palestine  (see 
below,  n.  192).  Soffridus  again  attested  letters  in  Rome,  May,  1206 
(Potth.,  2767);  Peter,  in  March,  1207  (Potth.,  3064).  (b)  Inn.  Ill, 
Epp.,  II,  252,  253.  (c)  Gesta,  c.  in.  (d)  Robt.  Altiss.,  Chronolog.  ad 
an.  1204,  in  J?ec.t  XVIII,  272. 

188  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  V,  43,  44  (Potth.,  1689). 

89 They  were  sent  about  1202.     Inn,  III,  Epp.,  V,  48. 

190  Called  excommunication. 

191  Gesta,  c.  116,  or  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VIII,  119. 

192  (a)   Inn.   Ill,   Epp.,  VIII,  I   (Potth.,  2429).     (b)   Inn.  Ill,  Epp., 
VII,  223;  VIII,  126.     From  these  letters  it  appears  that  the  legates  hud 
left  the  Holy  Land  before  March,  1205.     (c)   Cf.  Migne,  Pat.  Lat.y  214, 
clix.  n.  77. 

183  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VIII,  119,  120.  (b)  Gesta,  c.  118.  Cf.  Gesta, 
c.  109-119.  (c)  \Vilkins,  Gesch.  d.  Kreuzzuee.  V,  i6ff.  fd}  Notes  to 
Chroniqut  du  Connttable  Sempad,  Vol.  II. 


I36  THE  INTERDICT 

69  Lands  of  the  murderers  of  the  Bishop  of  Wurzburg,  1203. 
Conrad,  Bishop  of  Wiirzburg,  who  had  transferred  himself 
from  Hildesheim  without  papal  consent,  was  killed  December 
6,  1202.  In  January  of  the  next  year,  Innocent  wrote  to  the 
prelates  of  Germany  instructing  them  to  excommunicate  the 
murderers,  to  put  their  lands  and  those  of  their  adherents 
under  interdict,  and  to  interdict  any  place  to  which  they 
should  come,  for  the  time  they  remained  there.  This  sentence 
seems  to  have  brought  the  murderers  to  quick  submission,  for 
by  April  they  had  appeared  in  Rome  to  do  penance  so  severe 
that  some  one  has  said  a  death  sentence  was  preferable.194 
One  of  the  conditions  of  their  shriving  was  that  neither  they 
nor  their  heirs  were  ever  to  acquire  ecclesiastical  benefices 
without  obtaining  special  permission  from  Rome.  It  was  de- 
creed that,  if  any  fief  were  ever  obtained  contrary  to  the  pro- 
visions above  set  forth,  the  diocese  in  which  it  lay  should  be 
under  interdict  until  the  fief  was  surrendered  or  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  diocese  removed  the  offence.  The  interdict  on 
the  lands  of  the  murderers  was  raised  after  they  submitted.195 

7°  Lands  of  the  Counts  of  Geldern ,  Jiilich ,  Hochstaden,  Berg, 

and  Altena,  1205-1207. 

The  following  cases  of  interdict  were  attempts  to  strengthen 
the  papal  cause  in  the  quarrels  between  the  Guelfs  and 
Ghibellines.  During  the  struggle  between  Otto  and  Philip  of 
Suabia,  Adolf,  Archbishop  of  Cologne,  was  deposed  by  Inno- 
cent. In  the  fall  of  1205  the  Counts  of  Geldern,  Jiilich, 
Hochstaden,  Berg,  and  Altena  were  excommunicated  and 
their  lands  were  interdicted  by  papal  agents,  because  of  their 
adherence  to  the  deposed  archbishop,  and  because  of  their 

194  (a)  Inn.   Ill,  Epp.,  V,  155  (Potth.,  1813);  51  (Potth.,  1886);  VI, 
113  (Potth.,  1958).     (b)  Winkehnann,  Philipp  v.  Schwabcn>  I,  267-271. 

195  (a)  Boehmer,  Reg,  imp.>  No.  5834  (April  18,  1203).     (b)  The  same 
bull  which  relates  the  submission  of  the  murderers  ordered  excommunica- 
tion and  interdict  to  be  used  against  all  unrepentant  accomplices  until  they 
made  their  purgation;   and,  if  they  refused  to  submit,  they  were  to  be  fol- 
lowed by  an  ambulatory  interdict.     Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  113  (Potth.,  1958). 


APPENDIX 

attack  on  the  churches  of  Cologne.  The  sentence  was  re- 
moved on  Easter,  1206.  Many  clerks  observed  the  sentence, 
though  they  were  forced  to  beg;  others,  overcome  by  want, 
celebrated  services.196  The  Dean  and  the  Prior  of  Cologne 
asked  Innocent  how  to  punish  the  clerks,  monks,  and  nuns 
who  had  violated  the  interdict  and  still  continued  to  do  so, 
though  they  had  been  excommunicated.  On  May  15,  1207, 
Innocent  replied  that  clerks  guilty  of  violation  of  interdict 
were  to  lose  their  benefices ;  and  that  monks  and  nuns  should 
be  sent  to  monasteries  with  a  more  rigid  discipline.197  After 
the  interdict,  Innocent  remitted  to  their  superiors  for  judgment 
several  persons  who  had,  though  excommunicated,  held  ser- 
vices during  the  interdict.198  The  sentence  was  undoubtedly 
relaxed  in  1207,  when  peace  was  made  between  Philip  of 
Suabia  and  Otto ,  and  the  deposed  archbishop  surrendered  his 
claims.199 
7*  Bremen,  1208-1211  and  1211-1216. 

In  November,  1207,  Hartwig,  Archbishop  of  Bremen,  died. 
Philip  of  Suabia  had  pledged  himself  to  help  Waldemar,  Bishop 
of  Schleswig,  to  secure  his  election  to  the  archbishopric  of 
Bremen,  and  their  plan  easily  carried.  But  when  Waldemar 
went  to  Rome  to  secure  papal  confirmation,  at  first  he  was 
put  off,  and  finally  was  refused.  Thereupon,  though  the  pope 
had  ordered  him  not  to  depart  without  permission,  he  secretly 
left  Rome  and  occupied  the  new  see  on  his  own  authority, 
with  the  joyful  assent  of  the  people  of  Bremen.200  For  this 
high-handed  procedure  Waldemar  was  excommunicated,  but 
he  prevented  the  publication  of  the  bull  by  excluding  it  from 

196  (a)  Annal.  Colon,  max.,  1205,  in  MGSS.,  XVII,  821.  Cf.  Potth., 
2716.  (b)  Chron.  Regia  Coloniensis  Cont.,  I,  ad  an.  1206-1207,  in 
MGSS.,  XXIV,  12-13. 

197 (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.  X,  62  (Potth.,  3101).  (b)  Cf.  Winkehnann, 
Philipp  v.  Schwaben,  I,  393  and  notes. 

198  MS.  in  Berlin  (Potth.,  3363). 

199  Winkelmann,  Philipp  v.  Schwaben,  I,  397. 

800  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  X,  209  ( Potth.,  3299).  (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  X, 
210  (Potth.,  3300).  (c)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XI,  10  (Potth.,  3354). 


I38  THE  INTERDICT 

the  city ;  finally,  it  was  given  legal  validity  by  being  secretly 
deposited  on  the  altar  during  mass.  It  was  futile,  however, 
and  an  interdict  was  laid  on  the  city  between  April  and  De- 
cember of  i2o8,201  and  was  renewed  July  2,  1209.  Nothing 
more  is  heard  of  this  interdict.  Perhaps  it  also  was  delayed 
by  allowing  no  knowledge  of  it  to  reach  the  city.202  After  the 
death  of  Philip  of  Suabia,  Waldemar  for  a  time  lost  his  power 
and  made  his  submission  at  Rome ,  and  it  seems  probable  that 
the  interdict  was  then  relaxed.  At  any  rate,  when  in  1211 
Otto  IV  turned  against  the  papacy,  and  Waldemar,  whose 
fortunes  now  rose,  reentered  Bremen,  another 208  interdict  was 

201  It  is  impossible  to  do  more  than  approximate  the  date  of  the  interdict. 
Innocent  had,  it  seems,  by  February  21,  1208,  determined  to  excommuni- 
cate Waldemar,  if  the  date  assigned  (by  Potthast,  Reg.,  3299)  to  the  pope's 
letter  to  Philip  of  Suabia's  queen,  Mary,  urging  her  to  cause  Philip  to 
avoid  Waldemar  as  an  excommunicate,  may  be  trusted.     This  is  supported 
by  the  uncertain  evidence  of  two  other  undated  bulls,  fixed  by  Potthast  in 
February,  1208  (Reg.,  3300),  and  March,  1208  (Reg.,  3354),  respectively. 
The  first  of   these,  addressed  to  the  bishop-elect  of  Wiirzburg,  instructs 
him  to  announce  Waldemar  excommunicated.     The  second  is  addressed  to 
the  King  of  Denmark,  and  notifies  him  of  the  excommunication  and  of  the 
instructions  given  many  prelates  to  publish  the  sentence.     No  letters  to 
prelates  containing  such  instructions  are  extant.     The  evidence  of  these 
bulls  is  that  the  excommunication  was  published  as  soon  as  the  letters, 
issued  sometime  in  February,  1208,  could  reach  Germany.     This  was  pos- 
sibly the  case.     Nevertheless,  in  a  bull  dated  November  4,  1208  (Epp., 
XI,  173;   Potth.,  3530),  it  is  said  that  the  Archbishop  of  Magdeburg,  his 
suffragan  bishops,  those  of  the  see  of  Bremen,  and  the  Bishops  of  MUnster 
and  Osnabruck,  had  been  ordered  to  command  Waldemar  to  go  to  Rome, 
and   if   he    failed   to   comply  within    one   month   to    anathematize    him. 
Another  bull,  dated  July  2,  1209  (Epp.,  XII,  63;   Potth.,  3760),  agrees 
almost  verbally,  in  the  part  here  considered,  with  that  of  November,  1208. 
It  is  not  impossible  that  these  were  the  instructions  given  in  February, 
1208,  though  they  may  be  of  later  date  and  may  be  regarded  as  a  renewal 
of  the  excommunication  formerly  issued.     The  importance  of  this  for  the 
present  purpose  is  that  the  letter  of  November,  1208,  states  that  the  prel- 
ates had  been  instructed  not  only  to  anathematize  Waldemar  if  he  refused 
to  depart  for  Rome,  but  also  to  interdict  any  city,  fortress,  or  commune 
which  adhered  to  him.     Bremen  adhered  to  Waldemar,  and,  if  the  papal 
orders  were  executed,  the  city  must  have  been  interdicted.     From  these 
facts  it  seems  clear  that  the  interdict  was  pronounced  by  December  of  1208 
at  latest,  and  may  have  been  pronounced  as  early  as  April  of  the  same  year. 

202  (a)  Arnold.  Lubec.,  lib.  VII,  c.  10  and  c.  19,  in  MGSS.,  XXI.   (b) 
Winkelmann,  Philipp  v.  Schwaben,  II,  268. 

808  It  may  be  that  the  former  interdict  had  been  suspended. 


APPENDIX  I39 

laid  upon  the  city.204  The  people  bore  the  cessation  of  ser- 
vices with  great  equanimity,  for,  being  friendly  to  Otto,  their 
trade  with  England  prospered.205  No  other  information  re- 
garding the  interdict  is  forthcoming.  Waldemar's  fall  was 
assured  by  the  defeat  of  Otto  at  Bouvines  (1214),  and  in 
1216  he  was  expelled  from  Bremen.206  It  is  hardly  possible 
that  the  interdict  lasted  after  the  citizens  expelled  Waldemar.207 

72  Capua,  1210. 

The  canons  of  Capua  celebrated  services  in  the  presence  of 
the  Emperor  Otto,  and  for  this  reason  their  city  was  put  under 
an  interdict.206 

73  Naples,  about  1211. 

The  interdict  of  Naples  was  laid  by  the  archbishop  of  the 
city,  because  the  citizens  adhered  to  the  excommunicated 
emperor.  Some  questioned  whether  the  papal  excommunica- 
tion of  the  emperor  really  gave  any  prelate  authority  to  employ 
interdict  also,  and  the  Archbishop  of  Naples  put  the  question 
before  Innocent.  The  reply  was  that  the  Neapolitans  by  aid- 
ing the  emperor  had  justly  incurred  the  loss  of  spiritual  minis- 
trations, and  it  was  ordered  that  the  sentence  remain  in  force 
until  the  fault  was  amended.  Not  even  the  dying  were  to  be 
allowed  penance,  unless  they  swore  to  obey  the  commands  of 
the  church,  and  abjured  the  emperor,  and  even  then  they 
might  not  have  canonical  burial.309 

204  Annal.  Stadenses  ad  an.  1211,  in  MGSS.,  XVI,  355. 

105  Bremer  Urk.  B.,  I,  127.     Cited  from  Winkelmann,  II,  386. 

204  Annal.  Stadenses  ad  an.  1217,  etc. 

207  (a)  Cf.  Dehio,  "Waldemar,  Bischof  von  Schleswig,"  in  the  Hist. 
Zeitschr.,  XXX  (1873),  222-238.  (b)  Winkelmann,  II,  460. 

208(a)  Ryccardus  de  S.  Germ.,  Chron.  ad  an.  1211,  in  MGSS.,  XIX, 
334.  (b)  Ryccardus  (MGSS.,  XIX,  338)  states  that  at  the  Lateran  Coun- 
cil of  1215  the  Milanese  were  not  allowed  to  speak  for  the  Emperor  Otto, 
since  they,  being  his  adherents,  were  like  him  excommunicated.  No  other 
source  has  been  found  to  shed  light  on  this  sentence.  If  the  whole  city 
was  under  discipline,  the  sentence  implied  was  no  doubt  an  interdict. 

209  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XIV,  74  (Potth.,  4274).  (b)  Cf.  Hurter,  Innc- 
tenz  III,  II,  367. 


I40  THE  INTERDICT 

74  Liege,  nqS-February  14,  1199. 

This  case  has  no  connection  with  the  struggle  between 
Philip  of  Suabia  and  Otto  IV.210 

75  Brabant,  about  1212  (1214).     Liege,  1212-1213.     Lands 

of  Henry  of  Brabant  {1212—1214). 

Henry,  Duke  of  Brabant,  was  excommunicated  and  his  land 
was  interdicted  by  the  Archbishop  of  Mainz,  because  of  his 
adherence  to  Emperor  Otto.  He  was  also  under  an  interdict 
resulting  from  his  maltreatment  of  the  Guelf  bishop,  Hugh  of 
Liege ;  in  May ,  1212,  the  city  of  Liege  was  besieged  by  the 
Duke  of  Brabant  and  was  captured  and  plundered  by  his 
army.  Thereupon  a  council  of  all  the  prelates  of  the  diocese 
of  Liege,  held  at  Huy,211  determined  that  services  should  be 
suspended,  that  the  crucifix  and  the  relics  of  the  saints  should 
be  encircled  with  thorns  and  thrown  prostrate  in  every  church 
of  the  whole  diocese,  and  that  on  all  feast-days  the  sentence 
of  excommunication  should  be  renewed  against  the  duke.212 
For  nearly  eighteen  months,  the  crucifix  and  the  relics  of  St. 
Dodart  and  others  lay  on  the  floor  of  the  cathedral.  After 
repeating  the  regular  hours  the  canons  of  St.  Gilles  daily 
entered  the  church,  and  at  the  close  of  the  mass  one  of  the 
priests,  clothed  in  the  vestments  of  his  office  and  followed  by 
the  whole  clergy,  led  the  way  to  the  centre  of  the  cathedral, 
where  all  prostrated  themselves  and  cried  :  "  Look  down,  O 
Lord,  from  thy  holy  habitation."  213 

To  these  two  interdicts  of  Henry  a  third  was  added.  It 
happened  that,  at  a  lawsuit  presided  over  by  papal  commis- 
sioners, one  of  the  duke's  servants  struck  a  clerk  so  hard  as  to 

810Reineri  Annales,  in  MGSS.,  XVI,  654-655.  Citizens  buried  their 
dead  without  solemnities;  but  those  who  swore  never  thereafter  to  contra- 
vene ecclesiastical  liberty  were  not  deprived  of  viaticum. 

211  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XVI,  56  (Potth.,  4736).      (b)  Chron.  Leod.,  in 
Rec.,  XVIII,  622-623.     Cf.  Winkelmann,  Philipp  v.  Schwabcn,  II,  304. 

212  Aegidius  Aureavall. ,  Gest.  Pont.  Leod.  ad  an.  1212,  in  MGSS. ,  XXV, 
118. 

213Reineri  Annal.  ad  an.  1212,  in  MGSS.,  XVI,  664,  n.  24. 


APPENDIX  I4I 

draw  blood ;  on  account  of  this  the  commissioners  excom- 
municated the  duke  and  interdicted  his  lands,  though  he  was 
absent  and  ignorant  of  the  whole  affair.  The  trebly  inter- 
dicted duke's  fortunes  declined  with  those  of  the  excommuni- 
cated emperor,  who  could  afford  him  no  help  equal  to  that 
which  Hugh  obtained  from  France  and  Flanders.  Henry 
therefore  deprived  Hugh  of  French  help  by  himself  becoming 
an  ally  of  Philip  Augustus,  who  at  that  time  was  on  good  terms 
with  Innocent  III ;  a  part  of  their  agreement  was  that  Henry 
should  marry  a  daughter  of  Philip.  Henry  then  made  appli- 
cation to  the  pope ,  saying  that  he  was  ready  to  obey  him  and 
to  satisfy  the  Bishop  of  Liege,  if  the  interdicts  under  which  he 
lay  were  removed.  In  response  orders  came  from  Rome  in 
May,  1213,  that  the  interdict  should  be  relaxed  as  soon  as  the 
duke  had  abjured  all  allegiance  to  Otto  and  had  made  satis- 
faction or  some  agreement  with  the  injured  bishop.214  Bishop 
Hugh,  however,  prevented  the  absolution  of  Duke  Henry,  and 
the  latter,  still  under  the  ban,  was  married  at  Laon  by  an  ex- 
communicated priest.  He  continued  his  attacks  on  the 
bishop,  who  met  him  boldly  and  finally  won  a  complete 
triumph  over  him  at  Steppes,  October  13,  1213.  The  bells 
of  Liege  at  last  broke  the  silence  imposed  upon  them  by  the 
interdict  to  proclaim  the  good  news  of  the  duke's  defeat. 
When  the  bishop  returned  to  Liege,  a  conference  was  held  with 
the  prominent  men  of  the  city,  and  after  much  dispute  it  was 
decided  to  renew  services  at  Liege.  The  interdict  on  Brabant 
continued  until  the  next  year.  On  the  last  of  February,  1214, 
Henry  completed  his  peace  with  Bishop  Hugh ;  the  duke 
entered  the  cathedral,  lifted  up  the  prostrate  crucifix,  humbly 
kneeled  before  the  body  of  St.  Lambert,  and  finally  gave  the 
bishop  the  kiss  of  peace ;  then  he  and  his  lands  received 
absolution.216 

iulnn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XVI,  56  (Potth.,  4736). 

»15Reineri  Annal.  ad  an.  1213-1214,  in  MGSS.,  XVI,  664-671.  I 
have  found  no  record  of  an  absolution  by  the  other  authorities  who.  lai»l 
interdicts  on  the  duke. 


I42  THE  INTERDICT 

76  Cologne,  1214.— 1215. 

Cologne  adhered  to  Otto  during  his  anti- papal  wars,  and 
afforded  him  refuge  even  after  the  battle  of  Bouvines  had  given 
Frederick  II  the  victory.  It  held  out  in  spite  of  papal  inter- 
dict until  Frederick  approached  from  Aachen.  Then  it 
yielded  and  induced  Otto  to  depart  from  the  city.  In  conse- 
quence of  this  submission  the  interdict  was  removed  on  Au- 
gust 4,  1215 ,  after  having  lasted  for  seventeen  months.216  The 
interdict  on  Cologne  ends  the  series  of  cases  connected  with 
the  Guelf  and  Ghibelline  troubles. 

77  Lands  of  the  Countess  of  Blots  {between  1205  and  1213). 
This  interdict  grew  out  of  the  arrest  of  a  robber  by  an  offi- 
cer of  the  Countess  of  Blois.     The  canons  of  Chartres  de- 
manded his  surrender  on  the  ground  that  he  had  been  arrested 
in  their  jurisdiction.     When   the  quarrel  grew  serious,  the 
countess  gave  a  pledge  to  abide  by  a  judicial  decision  of  the 
matter,  but  the  canons,  disregarding  the  pledge,  put  her  lands 
under  interdict  and  refused  to  relax  it  until  she  made  amends. 

They  justified  their  refusal  to  relax  by  their  privilege  that 
no  one  might  relax  interdicts  laid  by  them  unless  suitable  sat- 
isfaction ("  congrua  satisfactio  ")  had  been  made  ;  and  they 
considered  reparation  to  be  the  only  satisfaction.  Failing  to 
get  consideration  from  the  canons,  the  representatives  of  the 
countess  applied  to  the  metropolitan,  who  felt  himself  unable 
to  decide  the  case,  and  therefore  referred  it  to  Rome.  There 
the  case  was  heard  sometime  between  1205  and  1213  by 
Roger,  Cardinal- presbyter  of  the  title  of  St.  Anastasia.21T  In- 
nocent then  wrote  to  the  Abbot  of  St.  Genevieve,  the  Dean, 
and  the  Chancellor  of  Paris  that  the  interpretation  of  the  con- 
tested words  of  the  privilege  depended  on  whether  the  inter- 
dict was  laid  for  contumacy,  that  is,  if  some  one,  when  cited, 
refused  to  stand  before  the  law ;  or  whether  it  was  laid  for  an 
offence,  that  is,  if  some  one,  when  ordered,  refused  to  make 

816  Winkelmarm,  Philipp  v.  Schwaben,  II,  393-396, 
S17  This  fixes  the  date. 


APPENDIX  I43 

reparation.  In  the  first  case,  a  pledge  to  appear  before  a  court 
was  "  congrua  satisfactio  ",  and  the  interdict  could  be  relaxed  : 
in  the  second  case,  if  the  offence  was  clear,  the  interdict  could 
not  be  relaxed  until  actual  reparation  was  made.218  What  ac- 
tion was  taken  upon  this  decision  is  not  known,  for  the  inter- 
dict is  not  heard  of  elsewhere. 

78    Lands  of  the   Countess   of  Champagne ,    various   dates. 

Meaux,  1214. 

That  the  Countess  of  Champagne  was  repeatedly  annoyed 
by  interdicts  is  evident  from  her  complaint  at  Rome,  in  which 
she  asserts  that  the  Archbishop  of  Sens  and  the  Bishops  of 
Troyes,  Langres,  Chalons,  and  Auxerre  hastily  pronounced  sen- 
tences of  excommunication  and  interdict  against  her  lands 
and  her  subjects,  rather  from  impulse  than  from  zeal  for 
righteousness.  Her  complaint  brought  the  offending  prelates 
a  communication  from  Rome  demanding  of  them  such  deport- 
ment as  would  give  the  countess  no  further  grievance  (No- 
vember, i2io).219  Perhaps  the  warning  was  temporarily  effec- 
tive, but  subsequent  events  show  that  it  lost  its  power  over 
some  of  the  former  offenders,  for  in  1214  Innocent  found  it 
necessary  to  take  Blanche  and  her  son  Thibaut  IV  under  his 
protection,  against  the  bishops  and  other  prelates  of  the  pro- 
vince of  Reims,  and  especially  against  the  Bishop  of  Chalons. 
All  these  had  encroached  upon  her  civil  jurisdiction  22°  and  had 
used  excommunications  and  interdicts  to  sustain  their  courts, 
and  to  compel  the  payments  of  the  fines  of  those  persons  who 
violated  the  Lord's  day  by  fighting.221  In  order  to  make  this 
protection  of  the  countess  effective,  on  December  10,  1214, 
the  pope  called  the  attention  of  the  Archbishop  of  Reims,  the 
Bishops  of  Chalons  and  Soissons,  and  their  officials  and  chap- 
ters, to  his  recent  intervention  in  behalf  of  the  countess,  and 

*18  C.  23.  X.  de  verb,  signif.  5.  40. 

21»Bibl.  Nat.,  MS.  Lat.  5993  A,  fol.  6,  r0-;,  v°  (Potth.,  41358), 

™Ibid.  (Potth.,  4943). 

221Lebeuf,  Mem.  Diocese  <? Auxerre,  I,  389-390. 


I44  THE  INJ^ERDICT 

suggested  that  they  should  not  lightly  issue  either  excommuni- 
cation or  interdict  against  her  or  her  subjects  ;  he  also  notified 
them  that  the  Bishop  of  Auxerre,  the  Abbot  of  Vezelai,  and 
the  Archdeacon  of  Auxerre  were  empowered  to  use  ecclesi- 
astical disciplines  against  them.222  But  even  this  was  not  ade- 
quate protection,  for  in  1215  Innocent  granted  to  the  countess 
and  her  son  the  privilege  that  no  one  could  excommunicate 
them  or  interdict  their  lands.  These  orders  and  privileges 
were  no  doubt  the  result  of  frequent  threats,  if  not  of  sentences 
of  interdict.223  Of  the  duration,  extent,  and  effectiveness  of 
the  threats  and  sentences  nothing  is  known  with  the  exception 
of  the  following  interdict  on  the  town  of  Meaux  in  1214.  A 
charter  of  Stephen  of  Noyon  relates  that  he  came  to  Meaux  on 
business  and  found  the  place  under  interdict  because  the  pre"vot 
of  the  Countess  of  Champagne  had  seized  some  church  proper- 
ties. Finding  that  the  countess  was  in  the  town,  Stephen 
went  to  her  and  advised  her  to  restore  the  properties.  She 
acted  on  his  advice, but  reserved  all  rights.224  This  charter  of 
Stephen  is  dated  Sunday,  March  2,  1214,  about  which  time  it 
is  probable  that  the  interdict  was  relaxed. 
79  Rouen,  1207. 

This  interdict  was  laid  on  Rouen  and  all  its  churches  by 
the  chapter  of  the  city,  because  a  canon  had  been  imprisoned 
by  the  mayor  on  account  of  a  brawl.225  The  King  of  France 
was  greatly  concerned  about  the  matter,  and  wrote  to  the 
chapter  many  times,  advising,  commanding,  and  threatening; 
finally  he  sent  four  commissioners  to  induce  the  chapter  to 
relax  the  interdict  for  the  honor  of  the  king,  and  promised 
that  the  cause  of  the  canons  should  be  tried.  On  the  first 
day,  the  chapter  stood  its  ground  and  the  negotiations  were 
futile  ;  on  the  second  day,  the  commissioners  offered  to  acquit 

8"  BibL  Nat.,  MS.  Lat.  5993  A,  fol.  7,  r°-8,  v°  (Potth.,  4946). 
12SPotth.,  5269. 

22*Bibl.  Nat.,  MS.  Lat.  5993  A,  fol.  158,  r°-i59,  v«.  Cf.  Arbois  de 
Jubainville,  Comtes  de  Champagne,  V,  87,  905. 

126Chron.  Rothomag.  ad  an.  1207,  in  Labbe,  Nova  BibL,  I,  370-371, 


APPENDIX  I45 

the  canon  on  condition  that  the  interdict  be  relaxed.  The 
chapter  responded  that  the  mayor  had  detained  the  canon 
contrary  to  justice  and  to  ecclesiastical  liberty,  even  after  he 
had  been  asked  to  free  him ;  and  that  therefore  the  city  was 
under  interdict,  which  sentence  ought  not  to  be  and  could  not 
be  relaxed  until  the  mayor  had  made  reparation.  The  chap- 
ter carried  the  day.  The  canon  was  surrendered,  and  the 
mayor,  in  the  presence  of  the  full  chapter,  the  royal  agents, 
and  a  large  throng  which  gathered  to  witness  the  event,  gave 
bail  and  provided  good  and  sufficient  sponsors.226  These 
things  having  been  done  for  the  praise  of  the  Lord  and  the 
honor  of  the  church,  the  interdict  was  removed.227 

80  England,  1208-1214. 

The  great  interdict  of  England  and  the  interdicts  growing 
out  of  it  are  intentionally  omitted. 

81  Oxford,  1209-1214. 

In  the  course  of  the  year  1209,  a  student,  while  practicing 
archery,  accidentally  killed  a  woman.228  When  he  found  that 
she  was  dead,  he  sought  safety  in  flight.  The  mayor  and 
others,  upon  discovering  the  body,  searched  for  the  homi- 
cide in  the  lodgings  which  he  with  three  fellow-clerks  had 
rented.  Not  finding  the  guilty  man,  they  imprisoned  his 
three  companions,  who  were  still  entirely  ignorant  of  the 
accident.  Some  days  after,  at  the  order  of  King  John,  whose 
realm  was  then  under  interdict,  and  who  doubtless  enjoyed 
the  opportunity  of  making  the  lot  of  clerks  miserable,  the 

226Antiquus  Cartul.  Eccl.  Baiocen.,  No.  300,  in  M&m.  Soc.  Antiq. 
Norm.,  8  (1834),!,  452-453- 

227Chron.  Rothomag.  ad  an.  1211,  in  Labbe,  Nova  Bibl.,  I,  372.  This 
interdict  was  caused  by  the  Archbishop  of  Rouen's  retention  of  the  chap- 
ter's share  of  the  income  from  Dieppe.  It  was  laid  on  the  cathedral  Sep- 
tember 17,  and  was  removed  September  29  through  the  mediation  of  the 
Bishop  of  Evreux. 

218  The  Chronicle  of  Lanercost  (ed.  Stevenson,  Bannatyne  Club,  p.  4 — 
I  take  this  from  Walt.  Covent.,  Mem.,  £.  Ser.,  II,  201,  n.  2)  leads  one 
to  suppose  that  the  cause  for  the  trouble  was  the  maltreatment  and  subse- 
quent murder  of  a  girl.  Cf.  Chron.  Mailros,  ed.  Fulman,  p.  182. 


I46  THE  IN7EKDICT 

captives  were  conducted  out  of  the  city  and  hanged."9  In 
consequence  about  three  thousand  scholars,  including  nearly 
all  the  masters,  departed  from  the  city.230  Some  went  to 
Cambridge,  and  others  to  Reading.  An  interdict  was  laid 
upon  the  city ,  though  when  and  by  whom  is  nowhere  stated  ; m 
it  endured  at  least  until  October,  1213,  for  Bishop  Nicolas  of 
Tusculum  reached  England  about  the  end  of  September,  1213, 
and  made  his  way  to  Westminster,  where  he  was  met  by  the 
citizens  of  Oxford  who  were  responsible  for  the  hanging,  and 
who  now  begged  for  absolution.232  The  legate  fixed  a  penance 
for  them,  a  part  of  which  was  that  they  should  lay  aside  their 
garments  and  shoes,  and  with  scourges  in  their  hands  should 
go  to  each  church  of  Oxford,  sing  the  fiftieth  Psalm,  and 

229  From  the  statement  of  Wendover  (./?.  Ser.),  II,  51,  it  seems  that 
three  clerks  were  hanged.  Later,  however,  he  says  that  only  two  clerks 
perished  in  this  way,  ibid.,  94.  The  Annals  of  Coventry  and  the  Chronicle 
of  Lanercost  state  that  one  clerk  was  hanged.  That  several  were  hanged 
appears  from  the  form  of  absolution  to  be  mentioned  later. 

280  Wendover  (R.  Ser.},  II,  51,  states  that  not  a  single  one  was  left. 
By  the  terms  of  submission  this  statement  is  proved  to  be  too  strong.  Cf. 
Annal.  Osney  (R.  Ser.}  and  Annal.  Monast.  (R.  Ser.},  IV,  54,  and 
Chron,  Petroburgense,  ed.  Stapelton,  p.  6. 

231  C.  W.  Boase,  in  his  Oxford,  p.  65-66,  states  that  the  interdict  was 
laid  by  the  legate  Nicolas,  Bishop  of  Tusculum.  This  cannot  be  correct, 
for  Nicolas  was  in  or  near  Rome  throughout  the  year  1209  and  attested 
papal  letters  (Potth.,  3621,  3637,  3726,  3740,  3742,  3755,  3770,  3789, 
3852,  3856,  3858).  He  was  not  sent  as  legate  to  England  until  1213, 
Wendover  {R.  Ser.},  II,  93.  The  fact  that  there  was  an  interdict  on 
Oxford  appears  from  the  penance  imposed  on  the  city  by  the  legate  Nicolas, 
Mun.  Acad.  Oxon.  (R.  Ser.},  I,  1-4.  The  annals  of  Coventry  and  the 
Chronicle  of  Lanercost  hint  at  an  interdict. 

233  Wendover  (fi.  Ser.),  II,  94.  The  penance  mentioned  by  Wendover 
seems  to  have  been  assigned  at  Westminster.  It  should,  however,  be 
noted  that  on  June  25,  1214,  the  legate  Nicolas  issued  the  terms  for  the 
absolution  of  the  people  of  Oxford,  and  that  at  that  time  the  interdict  was 
still  in  force.  Possibly  the  legate  assigned  a  preliminary  penance  in  West- 
minster, and  the  absolution  to  be  given  by  the  priests  was  merely  for  the 
murder  and  not  from  the  interdict.  At  any  rate  this  account  of  Wendover's 
raises  a  curious  point.  In  the  first  place,  as  has  been  said,  the  interdict 
was  still  in  force  in  Oxford  on  June  25,  1214.  How,  then,  could  priests 
give  absolution  in  churches?  This  difficulty  is  made  more  serious  by  the 
fact  that  the  interdict  of  the  realm  was  still  in  force  until  about  July  I .  No 
doubt  Nicolas  in  his  capacity  as  legate  had  power  to  open  churches  for  the 
purpose  indicated  by  Wendover,  whose  statement  is  therefore  reconcilable 
with  events. 


APPENDIX  !47 

thereby  obtain  absolution  from  the  priest.  In  order  that 
neither  they  nor  others  should  dare  to  commit  a  similar  deed 
it  was  determined  that  this  penance  should  be  prolonged  by 
their  going  thus  to  but  a  single  church  each  day. 

The  citizens  as  a  whole  were  also  disciplined.  On  June  25 , 
1214,  the  legate  addressed  a  letter  to  the  burgesses  of  Oxford 
fixing  their  penalty  for  permitting  the  clerks  to  be  hanged.  It 
was  therein  stipulated  that  for  ten  years  the  townsmen  should 
exact  for  lodgings  only  one- half  the  rent  that  they  had  charged 
previous  to  the  withdrawal  of  the  clerks.  As  for  halls  con- 
structed afterwards,  or  halls  the  rent  of  which  had  not  been 
determined,  the  charges  were  to  be  fixed  by  a  board  of  four 
clerks  and  four  burgesses.  Besides,  the  city  was  to  contribute 
fifty  pounds  annually,  payable  in  two  instalments,  for  the 
support  of  poor  scholars  ;  and  forever  after  on  St.  Nicholas' 
day  the  city  was  to  set  a  feast  of  bread,  ale,  pottage,  and  fish 
or  meat  for  one  hundred  poor  scholars  to  be  named  by  the 
Bishop  of  Lincoln,  or  on  his  authority.  The  citizens  were  to 
swear  to  sell  provisions  to  the  scholars  at  fair  and  reasonable 
rates,  and  not  to  circumvent  this  agreement  by  fraudulent 
arrangements  of  any  sort ; 233  if  thereafter  they  arrested  a  clerk 
they  were  on  demand  to  deliver  him  to  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln 
for  safe-keeping ;  and  they  were  to  renew  this  oath  each  year. 
A  properly  certified  charter  containing  these  terms  was  to  be 
drawn  up  and  given  to  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln  for  safe- 
keeping.234 The  masters  who  had  continued  teaching  after  the 
scholars  had  fled  from  the  city  were  suspended  from  lecturing 
for  three  years.  After  the  interdict  was  relaxed  all  those  citi- 
zens who  had  been  convicted  of  hanging  the  clerks  were  to  go 
without  hats,  coats,  or  shoes  to  the  graves  of  the  clerks  whom 
they  had  hanged,  and  were  to  bury  them  properly  in  a  place 
indicated  by  the  clergy.  When  these  things  were  complied 

231  This  gave  the  University  a  right  to  share  in  the  regulation  of  the 
markets  of  the  city.  See  Burrows,  Collectanea,  II,  46  (Pub.  Oxf.  Hist. 
Sof.,  1890). 

234  Mun.  Acad.  Oxon,  (R.  Ssr.)t  1-4. 


I48  THE  INTERDICT 

with,  the  lectures  were  to  be  resumed  except  by  those  who 
were  suspended.  Should  they  fail  to  meet  the  terms  once 
agreed  to,  the  interdict  was  to  revive.  The  Bishop  of  Lincoln 
was  made  executor  of  the  order.  With  the  imposition  of  this 
severe  penalty  the  interdict  of  Oxford  disappears. 

82  Bergamo,  about  1210. 

The  city  of  Bergamo  disagreed  with  the  canons  because  the 
citizens  made  exactions  on  ecclesiastics.  For  this  reason  the 
city  was  interdicted  and  remained  under  the  sentence  for  a 
long  time.  As  a  consequence  of  the  cessation  of  services  the 
piety  of  the  people  began  to  diminish,  and  heresy  began  to 
put  forward  a  bolder  front.  When  the  podesta  of  the  city  at 
last  pleaded  for  mercy,  the  bishop  and  the  chapter  hesitated  to 
accept  without  papal  consent  the  satisfaction  offered,  and  they 
brought  the  matter  before  Innocent.  In  April,  1210,  he  in- 
structed the  Abbot  of  St.  Ambrose  and  the  Archdeacon  of 
Milan  to  make  what  terms  seemed  most  expedient,  and  there- 
after to  relax  the  interdict.235 

83  Coimbra  i  1211. 

The  interdict  of  Coimbra  grew  out  of  a  difference  of  long 
standing  between  King  Sancho  of  Portugal  and  the  Bishop  of 
Coimbra.336  The  immediate  occasion  for  it  was  the  bishop's 
demand  that  the  king  dismiss  a  sorceress  whom  he  daily  con- 
sulted. In  a  rage  the  king  summoned  the  bishop,  who  refused 
to  come.  Seeking  some  further  cause  against  the  prelate,  the 
king,  stopping  in  a  village  of  the  bishop,  demanded  a  meal 
under  the  right  of  purveyance.  The  demand  was  refused  and 
Sancho  demolished  the  buildings  belonging  to  the  bishop  and 
canons,  despoiled  the  church,  and  seized  considerable  episco- 
pal property.  For  this  reason  the  bishop  interdicted  his  dio- 
cese, and  to  prevent  the  Archbishop  of  Braga,  who  was  friendly 
to  the  king,  from  raising  the  sentence  appealed  to  the  pope. 

Receiving  news  of  this,  Sancho  ordered  the  confiscation  of 

285  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XIII,  43  (Potth.,  3962). 
M6Luchaire,  Les  Royautes  Vassales  du  Saint-Sitge,  14. 


APPENDIX  I4g 

the  property  of  any  clerics  who  refused  to  hold  services,  de- 
claring that  he  should  consider  them  his  personal  enemies, 
and  that  he  should  regard  those  as  traitors  who  assisted  them 
in  any  way.  The  Archbishop  of  Braga,  on  instructions  from 
the  king,  summoned  the  Bishop  of  Coimbra  to  his  presence  to 
show  cause  for  laying  the  interdict,  and  after  a  day  ordered 
the  bishop  to  remove  the  sentence.  This  the  prelate  declined 
to  do,  because  no  reparation  had  been  made  or  promised  for 
the  damage  to  his  church  and  property.  But  when  the  en- 
raged king,  among  other  cruelties,  blinded  several  clerics,  who 
persisted  in  observing  the  interdict,  in  the  presence  of  their 
relatives  and  friends,  the  bishop,  fearing  for  his  own  safety 
and  that  of  the  innocent,  relaxed  the  interdict  in  spite  of  the 
cost  and  loss  to  himself.237  Not  long  afterward  King  Sancho 
came  to  an  agreement  with  the  bishop  and  the  pope,  and  the 
latter  confirmed  his  testament.238  Sancho  died  soon  after. 
84  Portugal,  1 21 2-1 2 ij. 

Alfonso  II,  Sancho's  successor,  and  his  sisters  fell  into  dis- 
agreement over  their  inheritance,  and  the  sisters  applied  to 
the  pope  and  obtained  a  confirmation  of  their  father's  testa- 
ment.'39 The  Archbishop  of  Compostella  and  the  Bishop  of 
Zamora  were  instructed  to  guard  the  rights  of  the  princesses, 
and  thus  it  came  about  that  Alfonso  was  excommunicated  and 
Portugal  interdicted.240  Two  Spanish  abbots  were  commis- 
sioned by  the  pope  to  arbitrate  the  difference.  When  they 
were  about  to  absolve  the  king  from  excommunication  and  in- 
terdict, the  sisters  restrained  them  on  the  plea  that  the  papal 
letters  ordering  the  absolution  were  forged.  The  abbots  de- 
cided to  take  time  to  investigate.  The  king  maintained  that 
he  suffered  damage,  because  the  agreement  to  remove  the 
sentence  as  soon  as  he  had  taken  the  required  oath  had  not 
been  kept,  and  he  therefore  appealed  to  Rome.  Both  parties 

"7Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XIV,  8  (Potth.,  4187). 
138 Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XIV,  58  (Potth.,  4255). 
139 Potth.,  4316,  4318,  4319,  4324. 
n°Luchaire,  Les  Royautes  Vassales,  25. 


I5o  INTERDICT 

sent  representatives  to  the  pope ,  who  commanded  on  May  2 1 , 
1213,  that  as  soon  as  the  king  took  oath  to  accept  the  papal 
award  the  sentences  should  be  removed.241 
85  Lands  of  Raymond  of  Toulouse,  1207.     Ambulatory  inter- 
dict,  1208-1209.      Toulouse,    1200-1210   and  1211- 
1214. 

The  difficulties  of  the  church  with  the  Albigenses  caused 
several  interdicts.  As  early  as  1198  Innocent  gave  his  agents 
in  Albigensian  lands  authority  to  use  interdict  to  compel  obe- 
dience to  the  church.242  The  discipline  was,  however,  not  em- 
ployed until  1207.  At  that  time,  Pierre  de  Castelnau,  the 
legate,  was  endeavoring  to  force  Raymond  VI  of  Toulouse  to 
make  peace  with  his  local  enemies,  and  to  cease  favoring  the 
heretics.  Raymond  refused,  whereupon  the  legate  excom- 
municated the  count  and  put  an  interdict  upon  his  lands ;  this 
sentence  was  confirmed  by  the  pope  on  May  29,  I207.243 
Raymond  must  have  met  the  demands  of  the  legate,  for  he  was 
absolved  before  the  first  of  August,  and  the  interdict  was 
doubtless  removed  at  the  same  time.244  Before  the  end  of  the 
year  Raymond  and  the  legate  again  disagreed.  The  latter 
considered  the  count  too  tolerant  toward  heretics,  and  ex- 
pressed his  conviction  by  excommunicating  him.  Raymond 
tried  to  come  to  an  understanding,  but  he  seemed  too  vacil- 
lating and  uncertain  in  his  attitude  to  the  papal  emissaries,  and 
they  refused  him  favor.  The  angry  count  threatened  them 
with  death.  On  January  15,  1208,  as  Pierre  de  Castelnau 
was  about  to  cross  the  Rhone,  he  was  murdered  by  two  un- 
known men  generally  supposed  to  have  been  under  orders 
from  the  Count  of  Toulouse.  This  crime  brought  the  wrath  of 
the  church  upon  the  count.  Orders  were  issued  by  the  curia 

241  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XVI,  52  (Potth.,  4732). 

242 Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  I,  94  (Potth.,  95). 

248  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  X,  69  (Potth.,  3114).  (b)  Rec.t  XIX,  491 
(Potth.,  3115). 

244  (a)  Petrus  de  Vallibus-Sarnaii,  c.  3,  in  Rec.,  XIX,  1-113.  (b)  Hiit- 
Gin.  de  Languedoc,  VI,  258. 


APPENDIX  1SI 

on  March  10  to  the  prelates  of  southern  Gaul  to  excommuni- 
cate the  murderer  and  those  who  gave  him  advice  or  aid,  and 
to  put  under  interdict  all  places  to  which  he  and  his  friends 
should  come.  To  this  was  added  a  special  excommunication 
of  the  count.243  This  sentence  endured  for  more  than  a  year, 
though  nothing  is  recorded  of  its  operation.  In  June,  1209,  a 
council  was  held  at  St.  Gilles,  and  there  Raymond  came  to 
terms.  He  took  oath  to  the  conditions  propounded  by  the 
legates,  and  was  absolved  from  excommunication  with  a  thor- 
ough shriving.'246  The  terms  under  which  the  interdict  was  to 
be  relaxed  were  fixed  at  the  council  and  were  afterwards  pub- 
lished by  the  legates.  Persons  of  importance  excommunicated 
and  interdicted  nominatim  who  had  not  been  present  at  the 
council  were  to  appear,  with  letters  from  their  bishops,  before 
one  of  the  legates  for  absolution.  As  to  persons  of  lesser  im- 
portance and  the  people,  it  was  enough  if  the  bishop  or  his 
authorized  agent  went  to  the  place  interdicted,  and  received 
the  oath  of  the  inhabitants  to  accept  the  award  of  the  church. 
Bodies  buried  during  the  interdict  were  exhumed  and  were  in- 
terred anew  with  the  customary  rites — unless  they  were  ex- 
communicated nominatim,  in  which  case  they  had  no  right  to 
burial  anyway.  If  these  things  were  done,  the  interdict  was 
to  be  relaxed.247  Raymond  then  joined  the  crusaders  against 
the  Albigenses,  and  for  a  short  time  there  was  harmony.  It 
ended  when  the  legates  sent  emissaries  to  demand  of  the  count 
and  the  citizens  of  Toulouse  that  they  deliver  to  the  barons  of 
the  army  all  persons  whom  the  deputies  should  name,  in  order 
that  such  persons  might  clear  themselves  of  charges  of  heresy. 
They  were  to  deliver  also  the  property  of  the  persons  named, 
under  pain  of  excommunication  and  interdict.  Raymond  re- 
sponded that  the  demand  was  unjust,  since  he  was  recently 
absolved  of  all  faults  ;  and  the  citizens  of  Toulouse  who  were 
named  as  suspects  by  the  deputies  proclaimed  that  they  were 

245 Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XI,  26  (Potth.,  3324). 

™Hist.  Gen.  de  Isinguedoc,  VI,  277-282. 

847  Acta  Concilii  Vaurensis,  in  Hard.,  VI,  2019-2035. 


I52  THE  INTERDICT 

perfectly  orthodox,  and  that  they  with  their  fellow-citizens  had 
sworn  to  that  effect.248  The  consuls  of  the  city  called  the 
attention  of  the  deputies  to  the  fact  that  they  had  burned 
heretics  whenever  they  found  them,  and  they  declared  them- 
selves prepared  to  undergo  legal  action  in  their  own  city. 
This  answer  seemed  contumacious  to  the  legates,  and  they  ex- 
communicated the  consuls  and  proclaimed  an  interdict  against 
the  city.  This  probably  occurred  after  mid- year  of  1209.  To 
this  sentence  was  presently  added  a  sentence  of  excommuni- 
cation against  Count  Raymond  and  an  interdict  upon  his 
lands  because  the  count  refused  to  comply  with  the  various 
demands  made  upon  him.  The  sentence  was  moderated  by 
giving  Raymond  until  All  Saints'  day  to  make  his  peace; 
until  that  time  the  interdict  was  to  be  suspended.  Innocent 
was  notified  of  these  proceedings  about  the  tenth  of  Septem- 
ber.249 The  sentence  of  interdict  no  doubt  went  into  effect, 
for  Raymond  did  not  appear  before  the  legates.  He  resolved 
instead  to  complain  to  the  pope  in  person. 

He  visited  the  court  of  Philip  Augustus  to  influence  that 
monarch  in  his  favor,  and  from  there  went  to  Rome  (Janu- 
ary, i2io).250  Innocent  received  him  with  kindness;  and,  if 
the  count  did  not  secure  all  he  had  hoped,  he  at  least  ob- 
tained the  right  of  disproving  the  accusation  of  heresy. 
About  the  same  time,  envoys  of  the  citizens  of  Toulouse  ap- 
peared in  Rome  with  credentials,  and  sought  from  the  pope 
absolution  for  their  city.  In  the  same  month,  Innocent  gave 
orders  that  the  sentence  should  be  removed,  if  the  city  gave 
sufficient  pledge;  but,  if  the  citizens  failed  to  fulfil  their 
promises,  the  interdict  should  revive.  It  seemed  to  the  pope 
to  be  ill-advised  to  continue  an  interdict  for  so  long  a  time 
when  a  city  was  prepared  to  yield.251  These  instructions  were 

248  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XII,  170  (b)  Hist.  Gin.  de  Languedoc,\7l, 
300-301;  VIII,  612-613. 

249 Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XII,  107. 

250  Hist.  Gin.  de  Languedoc,  VI,  308,  319-320. 

261  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XII,  156  (Potth.,  3885).  (b)  Hist.  Gin.  de 
Languedoc,  VIII,  614-615. 


APPENDIX  I53 

followed.  The  legate  Arnold,  without  waiting  for  The"dise, 
who  had  been  associated  with  him  in  this  affair,  agreed  to 
relax  the  interdict  for  a  payment  of  a  thousand  pounds.  The 
citizens  promised  to  pay  this  sum  and  were  given  the  bene- 
diction. When,  however,  only  one-half  of  the  sum  promised 
was  forthcoming,  because  of  a  misunderstanding  among  the 
people  regarding  the  apportionment  of  the  tax,  the  legate  re- 
newed the  excommunication  of  the  consuls  and  the  interdict 
of  the  city,  though  all  the  citizens  were  willing  to  obey  him. 
This  step  greatly  angered  the  people  and  it  seemed  for  a  time 
that  the  trouble  was  further  than  ever  from  a  settlement. 
Still  they  did  not  dare  to  be  open  rebels,  and  therefore  re- 
newed their  oath,  and  gave  hostages  of  their  good  faith, 
whereupon  the  sentences  were  again  removed  (i2io).252 

But  the  difficulties  of  the  citizens  of  Toulouse  were  not  yet 
over.  A  council  was  held  at  St.  Gilles  in  September,  1210, 
to  try  Raymond  on  the  charge  of  heresy,  and  for  the  murder 
of  Pierre  de  Castelnau.  Acquittal  was  refused  him  on  the 
ground  that  he  had  not  fulfilled  promises  made  under  oath, 
and  that  he  was  therefore  guilty  of  perjury.  An  excommuni- 
cation followed,  and  was  confirmed  by  Innocent  on  April  15, 
1 2 1 1  s253  The  interdict  is  not  mentioned  in  this  connection,-54 
but  it  is  evident  that  an  ambulatory  interdict  dogged  the 
count,  for  on  the  Saturday  after  Mid- Lent,  1211,  when  the 
Bishop  of  Toulouse  desired  to  ordain  priests ,  he  was  prevented 
by  the  presence  of  the  count.355  In  order  to  surmount  this 
difficulty  the  bishop  requested  the  count  to  leave  the  city  on 
pretense  of  making  a  pleasure  excursion ;  Raymond  in  wrath 
sent  an  envoy  to  the  bishop  ordering  him  to  depart  at  once. 

151  Hist.  Gin.  de  Languedoc,  VIII,  614-616. 

553  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XIV,  36,  38  (Potth.,  4226). 

254  The  letter  of  the  Bishop  of  Riez  and  Magister  Th£dise  in  relating  the 
excommunication  states :  "  Propter  quae  a  legatis,  de  communi  consilio 
praelatorum,  multoties  fuit  anathematis  mucrone  percussus  et  exposita  terra 
ejus."  This  last  statement  probably  implies  an  interdict.  Hist.  Gin.  de 
Languedoc,  VII,  49,  n.  xvi. 

255petrus  <3e  Vallibus-Sarnaii,  c.  51. 


IS4  THE  INTERDICT 

The  prelate  replied  :  "  The  Count  of  Toulouse  did  not  create 
me  bishop,  nor  was  I  ordained  by  him ,  nor  for  him ;  I  was 
elected  in  accordance  with  ecclesiastical  law  and  not  thrust  in 
by  violence  or  by  the  authority  of  a  prince.  I  will  not  leave 
because  of  him.  Let  him  come  if  he  dare  ;  I  am  prepared  to 
be  put  to  the  sword  in  order  to  attain  glory  by  the  cup  of  pas- 
sion. Let  the  tyrant  come,  armed  and  with  his  minions;  he 
will  find  me  alone  and  unarmed.  I  await  the  reward,  and  will 
fear  nothing  that  men  can  do  to  me."  The  bishop  remained 
forty  days  expecting  each  one  to  be  his  last,  but  the  count 
dared  not  touch  him  and  allowed  him  to  depart  unharmed 
from  Toulouse  and  join  the  army  of  the  cross. 

In  the  same  year,  1211,  the  crusaders  turned  upon  Ray- 
mond, and  because  the  people  of  Toulouse  adhered  to  him 
they  were  once  more  interdicted  by  the  legate.256  This  inter- 
dict disappeared  in  the  troublous  times  which  followed  and  is 
not  heard  of  again  until  1213,  when  it  receives  passing  men- 
tion in  a  papal  bull.257  The  existence  of  an  interdict  in 
Toulouse  is  also  indicated  previous  to  the  battle  of  Muret. 
The  citizens  of  Toulouse  were  beginning  to  weaken  and  sent 
an  envoy  to  ask  Bishop  Fulc  to  come  into  the  city.  The  pre- 
late asked  Peter  of  Aragon,  the  military  ally  of  Toulouse,  for 
a  safe-conduct,  but  was  refused  and  told  that,  if  he  cared  to 
negotiate  with  the  citizens,  he  could  do  so  with  perfect  se- 
curity. Fearing  this  was  raillery ,  the  bishop  replied  :  ' '  It  is 
not  meet  for  a  servant  to  enter  a  place  from  which  his  master 
is  exiled.  I  shall  not  return  to  a  place  from  which  the  body 
of  Christ  has  been  expelled  until  my  God  and  my  Lord  him- 
self returns."  258  The  cause  of  the  people  of  Toulouse  became 
hopeless  with  the  victory  of  Simon  de  Montfort  and  the  death 
of  Peter  of  Aragon  at  Muret,  but  efforts  for  immediate  peace 
failed.259  So  far  had  the  -oppression  of  Toulouse  gone  that 

256  Hist.  Gen  de  Languedoc,  VI,  363. 

267 Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XVI,  48  (Potth.,  4741). 

Gin.  de  Languedoc,  VI,  423-424. 

432. 


APPENDIX  I55 

Innocent  at  this  time  sent  a  new  legate  to  bring  the  city 
back  into  harmony  with  the  church ;  and  took  the  city  under 
the  protection  of  the  Holy  See.'2*0  In  April,  1214,  the  city 
finally  submitted,  and  it  was  then,  no  doubt,  that  the  inter- 
dict, now  three  years  old,  was  relaxed. 

86  Marseilles ,  from  about  September,  1209,  till  after  April, 

I2II. 

The  interdict  just  described  lay  also  on  the  lands  of  Rous- 
selin,  Viscount  of  Marseilles.261 

87  Narbonne,  1216. 

As  long  as  Raymond  and  his  followers  were  able  to  oppose 
Simon  de  Montfort,  the  latter  and  the  church  agreed  fairly 
well ;  but,  when  Raymond  was  conquered,  there  was  no  check 
on  the  ambition  of  Simon  except  the  church.  Among  other 
objects  he  desired  to  possess  the  Duchy  of  Narbonne,  and 
therefore  he  occupied  it.  This  was  absolutely  contrary  to  the 
desires  of  the  Archbishop  of  Narbonne,  who  retaliated  by  ex- 
communicating the  count  and  by  putting  an  interdict  on  all 
the  churches  of  Narbonne,  especially  on  the  chapel  of  the 
castle,  for  the  time  that  Simon  remained  in  the  city.  Simon 
now  had  little  of  the  horror  of  interdicts  that  he  formerly  pro- 
fessed to  have,  and  he  zealously  had  services  performed  in 
the  chapel  particularly  interdicted ;  he  had  its  bell  rung 
though  all  other  churches  in  the  city  were  closed.262  The 
archbishop,  thereupon,  forbade  clerks  to  perform  services  in 
this  chapel ,  but  to  this  prohibition  they  paid  no  attention ;  he 
forbade  Simon  to  enter  or  attend  services  in  this  chapel, 
but  Simon  made  sport  of  it  all  with  a  laughing  retort.  The 
archbishop  could  not  endure  this  insult  and  solemnly  ana- 

160 Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XVI,  172  (Potth.,  4890). 

161  (a)  Hist.  Gin.  de  Langutdoc,  VI,  304-306.  (b)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp., 
XIV,  40  (Potth.,  4230). 

262  Potth.,  5213.  De  Montfort  may  have  done  this  in  pursuance  of  the 
papal  privilege  which  permitted  him  and  his  wife  to  hear  services  in  inter- 
dicted places.  This  privilege  was  annulled  by  Honorius  Ill's  confirmation 
of  the  sentences  imposed  on  Simon. 


I56  THE  INTERDICT 

thematized  Simon.  This  aggravated  interdict  only  irritated 
Simon,  and  produced  greater  ill-will  toward  the  archbishop 
among  the  people. 

The  legates  then  became  interested  in  the  matter.  Arnold, 
Abbot  of  Citeaux,  confirmed  the  sentences  against  Simon,  and 
prayed  for  papal  ratification.  Before  this  was  obtained  Inno- 
cent died,  and  Honorius  III  was  appealed  to.  He  con- 
firmed the  sentences  and  called  the  case  before  him  by  a  writ 
of  November  23,  1216.  Simon  continued  to  act  as  Duke  of 
Narbonne  ;  otherwise  the  outcome  of  the  episode  is  unknown.263 
88  Auxerre^  about  1284-1204. 

Hugh  Noyers,  Bishop  of  Auxerre,  disputed  with  Peter  of 
Courtenay  over  property  almost  from  the  time  that  the  latter 
became  Count  of  Nevers  (1184).  The  bishop  defended  him- 
self with  the  interdict.  It  was  in  force  for  fifteen  years,  ex- 
cept at  such  rare  times  as  the  prelate  and  the  noble  seemed  to 
be  at  peace.  Invariably  the  count  offended  anew,  and  the 
interdict  again  went  into  effect.26*  The  long  struggle  finally 
began  to  show  its  evil  effects  in  the  large  increase  of  crimes  ; 
and  it  was  feared  that  heresies  would  spread ,  inasmuch  as  men 
were  becoming  careless  of  their  spiritual  safety,  for  which 
reason  the  bishop  and  the  canons,  after  some  deliberation, 
agreed  to  alter  the  nature  of  the  interdict.  The  count  was 
excommunicated,  and  the  interdict  was  observed  in  the  city 
only  so  long  as  the  count  was  present ;  services  did  not  cease 
altogether,  but  were  conducted  according  to  the  rules  for 
privileged  places.  By  this  substitution  of  an  ambulatory  for  a 
local  interdict  the  pressure  was  not  removed  from  the  count, 
though  the  burden  of  the  church  was  lessened.265  Hardly  had 
this  arrangement  been  made  when  the  interdict  was  laid  on 
France  (1200).  For  various  reasons  the  Bishop  of  Auxerre, 
strange  as  it  may  seem,  refused  to  heed  it.368 

263  Hist.  G6n.  de  Languedoc,  VI,  479-481. 

264  Davidsobn,  Philipp  II  und Ingeborg,  102-103. 

265  Hist.  Episc.  Autiss.  ad  an.  1203-4,  in  Labbe,  Nova  BibL,  I,  475. 
366  See  above,  p.  79f. 


APPENDIX 

For  nearly  two  years  little  is  heard  of  the  Auxerre  interdict ; 
in  March,  1203,  papal  letters  were  addressed  to  Abbot  Ro- 
dulf  and  the  monks  of  St.  Germain  of  Auxerre,  granting  them 
as  an  especial  favor  the  right  to  ring  one  bell  at  the  burial  ser- 
vice of  a  monk,  providing  the  interval  between  the  strokes  of 
the  bell  was  brief,  and  the  bell  was  rung  for  a  short  time.  This 
privilege  was  granted,  it  is  stated,  because  the  Bishop  of 
Auxerre  had  granted  a  like  privilege  to  the  monastery  of  St. 
Julian  and  to  the  cathedral  of  Auxerre.267  This  clearly  shows 
that  an  interdict  was  in  force ,  though  the  accounts  of  the  in- 
terdict give  some  cause  to  infer  a  lull  in  hostilities,  if  not  an 
agreement,  during  the  first  half  of  I2O3.268  Peace,  however, 
did  not  last  long.  The  excommunication  of  the  count  and  the 
interdict  pursuing  him  finally  provoked  him  to  a  violent  attack 
on  the  bishop  and  the  clergy.289  About  September,  1203, 
Count  Peter  was  in  Auxerre,  and  as  a  consequence  of  his  pre- 
sence the  interdict  was  in  force  in  the  city.  A  mother  whose 
child  had  died  and  could  not  be  buried,  because  sepulture  in 
the  cemeteries  was  prohibited  by  the  interdict,  came  to  re- 
proach the  count.  Her  importunate  clamor  and  lamentations 
sent  him  into  such  a  fury  'm  that  after  the  body  had  lain  for 
three  days  27°  he  ordered  it  to  be  buried  before  the  bed  in  the 
bishop's  chamber.271  After  this  order  was  executed,  the  count 


*7(a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  23  (Potth.,  1862).  (b)  It  is  possible  that 
this  practice  of  the  cathedral  is  part  of  the  agreement  mentioned  above,  to 
mitigate  the  interdict. 

268  This  may  be  a  new  case  altogether,  (a)  Hist.  Episc.  Autiss.  ad  an. 
1203-1204,  in  Labbe,  Nova  BibL,  I,  475.  "Comes.  .  .  quodam 
tempore  excommunicatus  fuerat  ab  Episcopo  Autiss.  civitas  interdicto  con- 
clusa  propter  graves  ejus  excessus,  qui  vehementis  indignationis  igne  suc- 
census  .  .  Episcopum  .  .  .  et  Canonicos  et  Clericos  .  .  a  civitate 
ejecit  .  (b)  Robt.  Altiss.,  Chronolog.  ad  an.  1204,  in  Rec., 

XVIII,  269.     "  Siquidem,  anno  praeterito,  idem  Comes,  quibusdam  de 
causis,  ab  episcopo  anathematis  vinculo  innodatus  ..."     (c)  Inn.  Ill, 
Epp.,  VI,  149  (Potth.,  2002).     (d)  Ibid.,  150  (Potth.,  2003). 
above,  n.  268a. 


170  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  149.     "  .    .    .  corpus  .    .    .  triduanum  forsan  et 
foetidum  .    .    .  " 

171  See  above,  n.  268, 


I5g  THE  INTERDICT 

pretended  that  he  desired  reconciliation  and  secured  a  confer- 
ence, at  which  instead  of  reaching  an  agreement  he  per- 
petrated a  new  outrage.  The  dean  and  other  clerks  were 
pursued  to  their  homes  by  servants  of  the  count.  Shortly 
after,  much  ecclesiastical  property  was  seized,272  and  persecu- 
tion became  so  severe  that  the  bishop  fled  from  the  diocese 
and  retired  to  Pontigny.273  The  King  of  France  profited  by 
this  opportunity  to  appropriate  some  of  the  bishop's  property. 
The  time  at  which  the  burial  of  the  child  occurred  can  only  be 
inferred;  it  seems  to  have  been  about  September,  1203, 
judging  from  the  fact  that  between  the  ninth  and  the  twenty- 
first  of  October 274  of  that  year  Innocent  wrote  a  letter  to  the 
count,  in  which  he  mentioned  the  insult  offered  to  the  bishop 
in  trying  "  to  convert  his  home  into  a  cemetery,"  and  com- 
manded Peter  to  recall  the  prelate  and  make  good  the  many 
injuries  done  him.  If  the  count  failed  to  do  this,  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Sens  and  the  Bishops  of  Chartres  and  Chalons 
would  on  every  Sunday  and  feast-day  declare  him  excommuni- 
cated, and  would  on  papal  authority  subject  not  only  all  his 
lands  to  interdict,  but  also  every  locality  to  which  he  should 
come.275  These  instructions  are  extant :  besides  ordering  the 
above  threatened  sentences  to  be  proclaimed,  they  instruct  the 
commissioners  to  urge  the  King  of  France  to  restore  those 
properties  of  Bishop  Hugh  which  he  had  wrongfully  appro- 
priated.276 

At  the  same  time  there  was  issued  from  the  papal  chancel- 
lery a  letter,  addressed  to  Philip  of  France,  which  began  with 
an  unusually  long  eulogy  of  that  monarch,  and,  after  recount- 
ing the  startling  events  at  Auxerre,  urgently  requested  the  king 
to  restore  the  confiscated  possessions  of  the  bishop  and  to  use 

272  Robt.  Altiss.,  Chronolog.  ad  an.  1204,  in  Rec.,  XVIII,  269. 
278  Inn.  Ill,  Epp,,  VI,  150. 

274  That  this  letter  was  written  in  October  is  not  absolutely  certain.  Cf. 
Potth.,  2003. 

276  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  149,  150  (Potth.,  2002,  2003). 
176  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  151  (Potth.,  2004). 


APPENDIX  I5g 

his  authority  to  bring  Count  Peter  to  obedience.377  The  Arch- 
bishop of  Sens  and  his  assistants  informed  the  Bishop  of 
Auxerre  of  this  papal  interference  in  his  behalf.278  For  a  time 
the  count  remained  firm,  but  his  humiliation  came  at  last  and 
the  bishop  exacted  a  fitting  revenge.  On  Palm  Sunday,  April 
18,  1204,  there  gathered  in  Auxerre  a  much  larger  number  of 
people  than  was  usual  on  that  festival ;  nobles  and  prelates 
from  other  dioceses  were  there,  besides  many  whom  the 
novelty  of  the  scene  to  be  enacted  had  induced  to  come.  In 
the  presence  of  this  multitude  the  count  performed  his  pen- 
ance. At  the  appointed  time  Peter  of  Courtenay,  clothed  in 
penitential  garb,  entered  the  bedchamber  of  the  bishop,  and 
with  his  own  hands  disinterred  the  body,  which  had  now  lain 
some  months,  and  which  emitted  odors  offensive  to  all  present. 
Then,  as  though  he  were  the  commonest  of  men,  the  humili- 
ated noble  raised  the  putrid  body  to  his  shoulder,  and,  in  the 
sight  of  all  conveyed  it  in  procession  to  the  cemetery,  where 
he  completed  his  expiation  by  doing  sexton's  service.-79 

89  Auxerre,  between  1207  and  1220. 

The  Dean  of  Auxerre  gave  orders  to  observe  an  interdict, 
laid  probably  by  the  authority  of  the  chapter.  The  bishop 
countermanded  the  order  and  as  a  result  many  priests  paid  no 
attention  to  the  dean's  instruction.  He  therefore  suspended 
them,  but  the  bishop  absolved  them,  and  they  continued  to 
perform  offices.  The  difficulty  came  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
Archbishop  of  Sens ;  he  ruled  againt  the  bishop  and  ordered 
those  who  had  relied  on  the  bishop  and  disobeyed  the  dean  to 
be  scourged.  This  evident  injustice  to  the  clergy  was  prob- 
ably the  reason  why  one  of  their  number,  Master  Robert,  re- 

277  Potth.,  2003. 

878  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  VI,  152  (Potth.,  2005;. 

279  (a)  Hist.  Episc.  Autiss.  ad  an.  1203-1204,  in  Labbe,  Nova  Bibl., 
II,  475.  (b)  Robt.  Altiss.,  Chronolog.  ad  an.  1204,  in  Rcc.,  XVIII, 
269.  (c)  There  is  no  mention  of  removal  of  the  sentence  of  either  ex- 
communication or  interdict.  It  is  probable  that  the  sentences  were  re- 
moved upon  the  completion  of  the  count's  abject  submission. 


T6o  THE  INTERDICT 

belled  :  he  was  kept  on  bread  and  water  for  a  period.280  That 
it  is  not  the  same  interdict  as  that  which  lay  on  the  city  so 
long  because  of  Count  Peter  of  Courtenay  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  the  bishop  opposed  this  sentence.281  Though  little 
is  known  of  this  case,  one  feature  of  it  is  noteworthy ;  namely, 
the  inferiors  suffered  when  the  authorities  disputed  over  an  in- 
terdict. 
90  Orleans  and  Auxcrre,  1209— 1212. 

In  1209  King  Philip  ordered  the  feudal  army  to  assemble 
for  an  expedition  into  Brittany.282  When  the  Bishops  of  Or- 
leans and  Auxerre  arrived,  and  learned  that  the  king  was  not 
to  command  in  person,  they  returned  home  without  the  king's 
consent,  averring  that  they  were  obliged  to  serve  only  when  he 
led  the  army ;  many  lay  princes  followed  their  example.  The 
king  was  exceedingly  angry  ;  he  ordered  the  bishops  to  explain 
and  to  make  amends,  and  when  they  failed  he  seized  their 
temporalities,  leaving  them  their  titles  and  spiritualities.  The 
response  of  the  bishops  was  an  interdict  on  all  royal  lands 
within  their  dioceses,283  and  a  journey  to  Rome  to  make  a 
complaint.284  The  pontiff  declined  to  infringe  upon  the  laws 
of  the  realm  ,285  and  preferred  to  get  as  much  as  possible  for 
the  church  by  persuasion  of  the  king.  In  November,  1210, 
the  pope  wrote  two  letters  : 28(J  one  to  the  king  requesting  him 
to  restore  the  temporalities,  and  to  pardon  any  offense  given 
him  ;  and  another  to  the  Archbishop  of  Sens  and  his  suffragan 
bishops  urging  them  to  lessen  the  wrath  of  the  king.  These 
letters  were  altogether  ineffectual.  In  August,  1211,  a  com- 

280  Hist.  Episc.  Autiss.,  c.  lix,  in  Labbe,  Nova  Bibl.,  I,  481. 

281  See  above,  p.  156. 

282  (a)  Chron.   de   S.    Denis  ad  an.    1209,   in  Rec^  XVII,   394.      (b) 
Lebeuf,  Mem.  Diocese  d' Auxerre,  I,  370-372. 

288  (a)  Chron.  de  S.  Denis  ad  an.  1209,  in  Rec.t  XVII,  394.  (b) 
Lebeuf,  Mem.  Diocese  d* Auxerre,  I,  370-372.  (c)  Guill.  Armor.,  De 
Gest.  Phil.  Aug.  ad  an.  1209,  in  Rec.,  XVII,  82. 

284  See  above,  n.  2833,  b. 

285  See  above,  n.  2833,  c. 

286  See  above,  n.  283^ 


APPENDIX  161 

munication  was  sent  by  the  curia  to  Philip  stating  that,  as  he 
would  not  restore  the  bishops'  property  without  legal  proce- 
dure, so  the  pope  could  not  remove  the  interdict  without  judi- 
cial cognition.  The  suggestion  followed  that  each  party  give 
up  its  demand  for  legal  action,  and  that  the  matter  be  settled 
by  arbitration.287  About  March,  1212,  Innocent  once  more 
tried  to  persuade  the  king  to  surrender  the  temporalities,  and 
promised  that  after  that  had  taken  place  he  would  sift  the 
matter  to  the  bottom.  This  was  an  advantage  that  the  king 
refused  to  have  taken  from  him,  for  he  was  well  aware  of  the 
justice  of  his  position  and  would  not  weaken  his  case.  Instead 
he  secured  from  the  pope  a  commission  to  the  Archbishop  of 
Sens  to  hear  and  decide  the  case  ;286  the  archbishop  was  in- 
structed to  induce  both  parties  to  give  up  legal  procedure  and 
to  settle  the  matter  by  agreement.288  Disregarding  his  in- 
structions and  over-riding  the  appeal  of  the  bishops,  the  arch- 
bishop at  once  decided  in  the  king's  favor289  and  declared  the 
interdict  relaxed.290  His  acts  were  canceled  by  the  pope,291 
who  restored  all  things  to  their  former  state  and  ordered  that 
no  one  presume  to  violate  the  interdict ; m  at  the  same  time  he 
wrote  to  the  king,  and,  without  mentioning  the  reversal  of  the 
decision  of  the  Archbishop  of  Sens ,  he  endeavored  to  convince 
the  king  that  he  had  acted  illegally  toward  the  bishops,  that 
he  deserved  the  interdict  issued  by  them,  and  that  he  ought 
to  restore  the  properties  before  the  interdict  was  relaxed  ;  after 
restoration  and  relaxation  had  taken  place,  the  case  could  be 
tried  in  the  royal  court.293  But  this  sort  of  reasoning  did  not 
induce  Philip  to  give  up  the  property,  the  possession  of  which 
was  the  strongest  point  in  his  case.  Having  given  these  sug- 

287  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XIV,  163  (Potth.,  4300). 

288  (a)  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XIV,  163  (Potth.,  4300).     (b)  Ibid.,  XV,  108 
(Potth.,  4531). 

^Leheuf,  Mem.  Dioctsc  d^Auxerre,  I,  370-372. 

™>Ibid.t  IV,  Preuves,  No.  113. 

191  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XV,  123  (Potth.,  4543). 

292  Ibid.,  39  (Potth.,  4444)- 

293 Ibid.,  40  (Potth.,  4443). 


T62  THE  INTERDICJ^ 

gestions  a  few  weeks  to  produce  results,  the  pontiff  notified 
Philip  that  he  had  refused  to  confirm  the  decision  of  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Sens.  He  proposed  again  that  Philip  restore  the 
property  to  the  bishops,  that  they  in  turn  relax  the  interdict, 
and  that  thereafter  the  courts  of  the  realm  try  the  whole 
question.294 

Innocent  was,  however,  beginning  to  feel  that  the  matter 
had  been  pressed  far  enough ;  for  he  wrote  the  bishops  to  do 
everything  in  their  power  to  secure  peace ,  ' '  since  a  bow 
which  is  always  stretched  loses  its  strength,  unless  it  is  occa- 
sionally unbent,  and  princes  are  sometimes  better  subdued  by 
mildness  than  by  rigor  ",295  He  therefore  proposed  this  ex- 
pedient :  that  the  bishops  should  raise  the  interdict  and  ap- 
pear before  the  king  for  judgment ;  and  that  the  king  pardon 
them  and  give  them  "  main-leve'e  ",289  This  suggestion  was 
acted  upon,  and  led  to  the  establishment  of  peace.  In 
August,  1212,  the  bishops  issued  a  joint  proclamation  from 
Meaux,  in  which  they  declared  that  they  would  question  no 
marriage  contracted  after  the  relaxation  of  the  interdict  by  the 
Archbishop  of  Sens,  or  any  other  act  pertaining  to  the  sacra- 
ments ,  if  done  according  to  approved  custom ;  that  they 
would  take  only  such  steps  against  the  canons  of  St.  Anianus  ,296 
who  had  refused  to  observe  the  interdict,  as  they  would  have 
taken  had  their  quarrel  been  with  another  than  the  king  ;  and 
that  they  would  harm  no  clerk  or  layman  as  a  consequence  of 
their  long  disagreement  with  the  king.297  Besides  this  joint 
declaration,  the  Bishop  of  Auxerre  issued  a  separate  charter, 
in  which  he  acknowledged  that  he  owed  military  service  like 
all  other  bishops  and  barons,  and  that  he  would  thereafter 
serve  the  king  through  his  knights  as  did  all  others ;  he  also 
announced  that  the  king  had  exempted  him  for  life  from  per- 
sonal service ,  that  he  in  return  granted  to  the  king  as  much  as 

294  See  above,  n.  288b. 

»*Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XV,  109  (Potth.,  4532). 

W6Lebeuf,  Mem.  Diocese  d' Auxerre,  IV,  Preuves,  No.  113. 

29TInn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XV,  12  (Potth.,  4406). 


APPENDIX  !63 

he  chose  to  keep  of  the  profits  from  the  episcopal  regalia 
seized  before  June  24,  1212,  and  that  he  agreed  to  relax  the 
interdict.298  The  king  in  turn  issued  a  charter  in  which  he 
confirmed  these  terms.299 

There  arises  a  question  as  to  what  agreement  was  reached 
by  the  Bishop  of  Orleans  and  the  king.  Though  it  is  very 
probable  that  the  bishop  made  the  same  terms  as  did  the 
Bishop  of  Auxerre,  there  is  no  documentary  evidence  of  it  ex- 
cept the  joint  declaration  of  the  bishops.  This,  coupled  with 
the  fact  that  in  January,  1213,  the  king  and  the  Bishop  of 
Orleans  were  in  disagreement  over  the  interdict  of  that  prelate 
on  a  royal  chapel/"00  argues  that  the  Bishop  of  Auxerre  alone 
came  to  a  complete  agreement  with  Philip.  Though  this  dis- 
agreement over  the  chapel  may  indicate  the  continuation  of 
the  struggle  between  the  king  and  the  Bishop  of  Orleans,  it 
is  very  probable  that  the  interdict  laid  in  1209  on  the  dioceses 
of  Orleans  and  Auxerre  was  relaxed  in  August,  1212. 

298  Bibl.  Nat.,  MS.  Lat.  9779,  fol.  274.     "  W.  Dei  gratia  Autissiodoren- 
sis  episcopus  omnibus    presentes   litteras  inspections  in  Domino  salutem. 
Noveritis  quod  nos  confitemur  debere   Domino   nostro   Regi   Francorum 
illustri  Philippo  exercitum  suum  sicut  commune  episcoporum  et  baronum 
debet,  et  ilium  de  caetero  per  milites  nostros  et  aliter  serviemus.     Idem  enim 
Dominus  Rex  personam  nostram  ex  sevvitio  exercitus  quamdiu  vixerimus 
relaxavit,  et  nos  pro  hac  relaxatione  et  pro  amore  ipsius  et  gratia  habenda 
concedimus  et  volumus  quod  ipse  de  proventibus  regalium  nostrorum  quos 
percepit  usque  ad  festum  Sancti  Joannis  Bapt.  nuper  praeteritum  retineat 
pro  sua  voluntate ;  super  eo  autem  quod  ex  inde  retinebit  ipsum  vel  haeredem 
suum  vel  alium  pro  ipso  in  causam  per  nos  vel  per  alium  non  trahemus  et 
relaxabimus  interdictum  ....  Actum  apud   Meled.  anno   D.  MCCXII. 
mense  Augusto."     (I  have  not  found  this  charter  in  print.) 

299  Lebeuf,  Mem.  Diocese  d"1  Auxerre,  IV,  Preuves,  No.  1 14. 

300  Inn.  Ill,  Epp.,  XV,  227  (Potth.,  4666). 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


The  source  material  for  the  study  of  interdicts  is  usually  meagre,  and 
hidden  away  in  the  midst  of  information  on  other  subjects.  The  only  ex- 
tended contemporary  account  which  has  come  to  the  author's  notice  is 
Sarpi's  "  Historia  particolare  "  of  the  Venetian  interdict  of  1606.  The 
brevity  of  most  references  to  interdicts  makes  information  on  the  subject 
scrappy,  and  any  treatise  on  the  interdict  perforce  has  something  in  com- 
mon with  a  crazy-quilt.  Source  material  is  also  widely  dispersed.  One 
sometimes  discovers  it  in  most  unexpected  places,  and  again  fails  to  find  it 
where  it  is  most  reasonably  sought;  a  gloss  upon  a  manuscript  may  con- 
tain a  bit  of  useful  information,  while  the  "  Catalogue  des  actes  de  Philippe- 
Auguste"is  disappointingly  destitute  of  material  on  the  interdict.  The 
official  correspondence  of  churchmen  and  the  acts  of  councils  and  synods 
are  the  most  fruitful  sources.  Chronicles  follow  in  importance,  and  are 
valuable  for  the  dramatic  aspects  of  the  interdict,  though  their  short  ac- 
counts might  lead  one  to  believe  that  interdicts  were  of  little  importance. 

What  has  just  been  said  of  sources  in  general  is  especially  true  of  the 
period  of  Innocent  III;  there  is  not  a  single  extended  account  of  an  inter- 
dict in  the  original  sources,  though  two  of  the  most  important  interdicts 
occurred  during  this  time.  So  many  sources  of  the  period  have  been  pub- 
lished, that  manuscripts  offer  relatively  less  than  they  do  in  other  periods. 
All  the  pipe  rolls  in  the  Record  Office  for  the  years  from  1207  to  1216 
were  worked  over,  and  all  entries  likely  to  shed  any  light  on  the  operation 
of  the  English  interdict  were  noted.  This  work  promises  to  give  modest 
results,  but  of  so  detailed  a  character  that  they  are  reserved  for  use  at  a 
later  time  in  a  discussion  of  certain  phases  of  the  interdicts  on  England 
from  1208  to  1216.  Besides  the  pipe  rolls,  many  manuscripts  in  Paris  and 
London  were  read,  with  the  same  scrappy  results  that  the  printed  sources 
gave.  Of  the  published  sources,  the  correspondence  of  Innocent  is  most 
useful;  episcopal  correspondence  and  conciliar  acts  are  little  less  valuable. 
Charters,  if  they  concern  the  interdict  at  all,  are  extraordinarily  serviceable. 
Chronicles  are  not  so  helpful  as  one  expects  and  wishes;  a  few  give  short, 
interesting  accounts  of  the  effects  of  interdicts.  The  sermons  perused 
yielded  nothing,  and  "  Vitae  "  gave  little  help. 

Secondary  works  were  of  more  use  for  general  knowledge  of  the  inter- 
dict than  for  the  period  of  Innocent  III.  They  usually  treat  the  interdict 
as  a  part  of  a  larger  subject.  All  canonists  devote  some  space  to  a  con- 

(l64) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  165 

sideration  of  the  interdict;  noteworthy  among  them  are  Avezanus,  Avila, 
Dupin,  van  Espen,  Ferraris,  Friedberg,  Lammer,  Permaneder,  Phillips, 
Richter,  Schulte,  and  Vering,  whose  works  are  not  given  below  because 
they  have  been  made  unnecessary  by  more  comprehensive  works.  Several 
histories  of  the  period  of  Innocent  III  give  considerable  attention  to  special 
interdicts.  Of  the  monographs  on  the  interdict — the  studies  of  Pithou,  of 
Kober,  and  of  Rowland — I  have  spoken  at  the  beginning  of  this  essay; 
and  more  precise  information  may  be  found  under  these  names  below. 
For  convenience  of  reference,  the  titles  below,  with  the  exception  of  the 
manuscripts,  are  arranged  in  alphabetical  order.  Works  cited  without 
comment  have  only  incidental  value  for  the  interdict. 

SOURCES. 
Manuscripts. 

Bibliotheque  Nationale  (Paris),  MS.  Lat.  9779,  fol.  274. — A  charter  of 
the  Bishop  of  Auxerre;  valuable,  as  it  gives  information  about  the  relaxa- 
tion of  interdict. 

Bib.  Nat.,  MS.  Lat.  5993.  A,  fol.  158-9. — A  charter  of  Stephen  of 
Noyon  relative  to  the  interdict  of  Meaux,  1214. 

Bib.  Nat.,  MS.  Lat.  5993.  A,  fol.  6-8. — Papal  bulls  concerning  the 
interdict  in  Champagne. 

Bib.  Nat.,  MS.  Franc.  17264. — Contains  a  brief  note  on  the  conduct  of 
Philip  Augustus  during  the  interdict  on  France,  1200. 

Berengar  Fredoli:  Tractatus  de  excommunicatione,  de  interdicto.  Bib. 
Nat.,  MS.  Lat.  15415,  fol.  22gf.  (Found  also  in  other  libraries.)— This 
treatise  was  written  while  the  author  was  Bishop  of  Beziers  (1294-1305), 
and  instructs  his  parishioners  what  to  do  in  cases  of  excommunication  and 
interdict.  He  quotes  the  canons;  thus  the  substance  of  his  work  may  be 
found  in  the  Corpus  Juris  Canonici.  The  virtue  of  the  work  is  that  it 
brings  together  all  canons  relating  to  conduct  in  time  of  interdict. 

Archives  departementales  de  1'Oise  (Beauvais),  Cartulaire  de  S.  Pierre 
de  Beauvais,  p.  89,  tit.  329. — A  papal  bull  to  the  Bishop  of  Beauvais  con- 
cerning the  relaxation  of  an  interdict,  probably  that  of  France,  1200. 

Arch,  depart,  de  1'Oise  (Beauvais),  H.  2143.  (Inventaire  de  titres  de 
8.  Corneille  de  Compiegne). — A  bull  of  Innocent  commanding  observance 
of  interdict. 

Arch,  depart,  de  la  Seine-In  ferieure  (Rouen),  6.  3596. — A  bull  of  Inno- 
cent concerning  a  discipline  upon  the  burgesses  of  Rouen. 

Arch.depart.de  1'Yonne  (Auxerre),  H.  14. — A  bull  of  Innocent  III 
granting  important  privileges  against  the  interdict. 

Arch,  depart,  de  la  Cote-d'Or  (Dijon),  No.  73,  fol.  172. — Enumerates 
several  important  causes  for  interdicts. 


1 66  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Published  Sources. 

Achery,  Lucas  d\-  Spicilegium  sive  collectio  veterum  aliquot  scriptorum, 
qui  in  Galliae  bibliothecis,  maxime  Benedictinorum,  delituerant.  Nova 
editio.  Paris,  1723.— Of  no  value  for  the  period  of  Innocent  III,  but  of 
some  use  for  earlier  interdicts. 

Acta  Sanctorum  Bollandistarum.  Brussels,  etc.,  1643  ^ — Not  es. 
pecially  valuable  for  the  present  research. 

Aguirre,  Jos.  Saenz  de :  Collectio  maxima  conciliorum  omnium  His- 
paniae  et  novi  orbis  .  .  .  Rome,  1753-55. 

Annales  S.  Edmundi,  ed.  F.  Liebermann,  in  Ungedruckte  Anglo- 
Normannische  Geschichtsquellen,  pp.  97-155.  Strassburg,  1879. — These 
annals  are  of  some  value  for  the  interdict  of  England,  1208. 

Bellarmin,  R.,  Cardinal:  Risposta  del  Card.  Bellarmino  al  Trattato  de 
i  sette  Theologi  di  Venetia  sopra  1'interdetto  della  Santita  di  nostro  Signore 
Papa  Paolo  Quinto.  Rome,  1606. — A  reply,  on  the  Pope's  behalf,  to  the 
argument  of  the  theologians  of  Venice  (see  Sarpi,  P.,  and  others,  Trac- 
tatus).  It  gives  attention  to  the  results  of  interdict. 

Boehmer,  J.  F.  :  Fontes  rerum  Germanicarum.     Stuttgart,  1843-1868. 

jBoehmer,  J.  F.:  Regesta  imperii  inde  ab  anno  1198  usque  ad  annum 
1254.  Neue  Bearbeitung.  Stuttgart,  1847-49. — The  sti11  Iater  revision 
by  Ficker  and  Winkelmann  (Innsbruck,  1881-1901)  has  not  been  used  in 
this  research. 

Bullarium  Romanum. — Bullarum,  privilegiorum,  ac  diplomatum  Ro- 
manorum  pontificum  amplissima  collectio.  (Ed.  Cocquelines.)  Rome, 
1738-45. — I  have  sometimes  used  instead  the  Taurinensis  editio,  1857  ff. 

Chapeaville,  J.:  Qui  gesta  pontificum  Tungrensium,  Trajectensium,  et 
Leodiensium  scripserunt,  auctores  praecipui  .  .  .  Liege,  1612-18. — Con- 
tains important  source  material  for  the  interdicts  of  Liege,  in  Hocsemius' 
Hist.  Pont.  Leod. 

Chevalier,  U.:  Ordonnances  des  rois  de  France  et  autres  princes 
souverains  relatives  au  Dauphine.  Colmar,  1871. 

Chronicles  of  the  Mayors  and  Sheriffs  of  London.  Translated  by  H.  T. 
Riley.  London,  1863. 

Collection  des princ ipaux  cartulaires  du  diocese  de  Troyes.  (Edited  by 
C.  Lalore.)  Paris,  1875-90. — Contains  some  useful  information  about  the 
interdicts  in  Champagne. 

Corpus  Juris  Canonici. — This  has  of  course  been  of  fundamental  im- 
portance. I  cite  it,  as  is  customary,  without  use  of  title. 

Delisle,  L.:  Catalogue  des  actes  de  Philippe -Auguste.  Paris,  1856. — 
Contains  but  little  reference  to  interdict. 

Du  Cange,  C.  Dufresne :  Glossarium  mediae  et  infimae  Latinitatis,  ed. 
Henschel.  Paris,  1840-50. — Contains  a  brief  discussion  of  the  interdict 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  167 

and  gives  the  text  of  the  sentence  of  interdict  issued  by  the  Council  of 
Limoges. 

Duples-Agier,  H.:  Chroniques  de  Saint  Martial  de  Limoges.  Paris, 
1874. — A  reliable  source;  of  importance  for  Limoges  interdicts. 

Fonti  per  la  storia  d' Italia.     Rome,  1887  ff. 

Gallia  Christiana  in  provincias  ecclesiasticas  distributa  .  .  .  Paris, 
1715-1865. 

Gesta  Innocentii  Papae  III,  ab  auctore  anonymo,  sed  coaetaneo, 
scripta.  (In  Migne,  Patrologia  Latina,  v.  214,  col.  xv-ccxxviii.) — Very 
valuable.  Gives  information  about  several  interdicts  of  which  no  other 
evidence  could  be  found. 

Goffridus  Vindocinensis :  Epistolae.     (In Migne:   Patrologia  Latina,  v. 

1570 

Haddan,  A.  W.,  and  Stubbs,  W.:  Councils  and  ecclesiastical  docu- 
ments relating  to  Great  Britain  and  Ireland.  Oxford,  1869-78. 

Haignere,  L.:  Les  chartes  de  S.  Berlin .  Paris,  1886-89. — A  reliable 
and  useful  work. 

Hardouin,  J.:  Collectio  regia  maxima  conciliorum,  ab  anno  34  ad 
annum  1714.  Paris,  1715. — Contains  conciliar  acts  which  are  useful  for 
every  phase  of  the  interdict. 

Harzheim,  J.t  and  others  :  Concilia  Germaniae.  Cologne,  1759-90. — 
Of  little  value  to  the  present  study. 

Henriquez,  C. :  Regula,  constitutions  et  privilegia  ordinis  Cisterciensis. 
1630. 

Huillard-BrtholleS)  J.  L.  A.:  Historia  diplomatica  Friderici  Secundi, 
sive  Constitutiones,  privilegia,  mandata,  instrumenta  quae  supersunt  istius 
imperatoris  et  filiorum  ejus.  Paris,  1852-61. — Contains  a  few  documents 
of  value  for  interdicts. 

Innocent  III,  Pope  :  Opera  omnia.  (In  Migne :  Patrologia  Latina,  v. 
214-217.) — This  edition,  a  reprint  of  older  ones,  contains  not  only  the 
literary  works  of  Innocent  and  the  anonymous  life  of  him  (Gesta  Inno- 
centii) named  above,  but  the  entire  body  of  his  papal  letters.  These  let- 
ters yielded  more  information  than  any  other  source.  They  are  cited 
sometimes  by  book  and  number  (the  "  books  "  corresponding  to  the  years 
of  his  pontificate),  sometimes  by  volume  and  page:  i.  e.,  as  "Inn.  Ill, 
Epp.,"  etc.,  or  as  "  Inn.  Opp. ,"  etc. 

Jvot  Carnotensis  Episcopus  (Bp.  of  Chartres) :  Epistolae.  (In  Recueil 
des  historiens  des  Gaules,  XV,  70  ff.) 

Jaffl,  Ph.:  Bibliotheca  rerum  Germanicarum.  Berlin,  1864-73.— Of 
some  value  for  the  interdict  in  general. 

Jaffe,  Ph.:  Regesta  pontificum  Romanorum  ab  condita  ecclesia  ad 
annum  1198.  Ed.  2.,  cur.  S.  Lowenfeld  et  al.  Leipzig,  1885-88.— In- 
dispensable. Particularly  helpful  in  discovering  interdicts.  Cited  as 
"J-L." 


!68  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Labbe,  Ph.:  Nova  Bibliotheca  Manuscriptorum  Librorum.  Paris,  1657. 
— Besides  other  useful  sources,  this  collection  contains  the  Hist.  Episc. 
Autiss.  and  the  Chron.  Rothomag.,  which  are  important  sources  for  the 
interdicts  of  Auxerre  and  Rouen  respectively. 

Langebek,  J.:  Scriptores  rerum  Danicarum  medii  aevi.  Copenhagen, 
1772-1834. — This  and  the  source  next  named  are  useful  for  tracing  inter- 
dicts in  Denmark. 

Ludeivig,  J.  P.:  Reliquiae  manuscriptorum  omnis  aevi  diplomatum  ac 
monumentorum  ineditorum  adhuc.  Frankfort,  Leipzig,  Halle,  1720-41. 
— The  chronicle  of  the  "  Auctor  Anon."  found  in  Ludewig  contains  an 
important  passage  upon  the  interdict  in  Denmark. 

Mansi,  J.  D.:  Sacrorum  conciliorum  nova  et  amplissima  collectio. 
Florence  and  Venice,  1759-98. — More  complete  than  Hardouin  and  of 
similar  value. 

Martine,  E.y  and  Durand,  U.:  Thesaurus  novus  anecdotorum,  seu 
Collectio  monumentorum,  complectens  regum  ac  principum  aliorumque 
virorum  illustrium  epistolas  et  diplomata  bene  multa.  Paris,  1717. — Con- 
tains the  text  of  the  sentence  of  interdict  on  France,  1200. 

Meiller,  A.  v.:  Regesta  archiepiscoporum  Salisburgensium — Regesten 
zur  Geschichte  der  Salzburger  Erzbischofe.  Vienna,  1886.  —  Of  some 
use  for  interdicts  in  the  Empire. 

Migne,  J.  P.:  Patrologia  Latina.  Paris,  1844-64  (the  title-pages  of 
the  set  most  used  in  this  research  bear  date  1889-91). — This  compre- 
hensive and  convenient  though  careless  reprint  of  all  the  writers  of  the 
Latin  church  to  Innocent's  time  is  of  course  indispensable. 

Miraeus,  A.,  and  Foppens,  J.  F.:  Opera  diplomatica  et  historica. 
Brussels,  1723-48. 

Mittarelli)  J.  B.,  and  Costadoni,  -A.:  Annales  Camaldulenses  ordinis 
S.  Benedicti.  Venice,  1755-73. — Of  incidental  value. 

Monumenta  Germaniae  Historica.  Hannover  and  Berlin,  1826  ff. — 
The  chronicles  printed  in  the  Monumenta  (cited  as  "  MGSS")  are  useful 
in  following  interdicts  in  the  Empire.  Of  particular  value  are  the 
chronicles  of  Arnold  of  Liibeck  and  Aegidins  Aureaevallensis. 

Muratori,  L.  A.:  Rerum  Italicarum  Scriptores.  Milan,  1723-51. — 
Not  very  helpful  for  the  period  of  Innocent  III. 

Pflugk-Hartlung^J.v.:  ActapontificumRomanoruminedita  Tubingen 
and  Stuttgart,  1881-88. — Useful  for  the  period  preceding  Innocent. 

Pfiugk-Harttung,  J.  v.:  Iter  Italicum.  Stuttgart,  1883. — Contains  a 
useful  reference  to  the  interdict  of  Cremona  during  Innocent's  reign. 

Placitorum  Abbreviatio.  Record  Commission,  London,  1811. —  Good 
for  effect  of  the  interdict  on  legal  processes. 

Potthast)  A.:  Regesta  pontificum  Romanorum  ab  anno  1198  ad  annum 
1304.  Berlin,  1874-75. — Continuing  Jaffe's  Regesta,  and  likewise  indis- 
pensable. Cited  as  "  Pottb." 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  i6g 

Quellen  zur  Geschichte  der  Stadt  Koln.  (Edited  by  L.  Ennen  and  G. 
Eckertz.)  Cologne,  1860-79. — Contains  various  ordinances  and  regula- 
tions of  the  Archbishop  of  Cologne  relative  to  interdicts. 

Raynalaus,  O.:  Annales  ecclesiastici  ab  anno  1198,  ubi  desinit  Car- 
dinalis  Baronius.  Lucca,  1747-56. — Embodying  many  documents,  but 
not  very  useful  for  the  present  study. 

Rolls  Series. — Rerum  Britannicarum  medii  aevi  scriptores,  or  Chronicles 
and  memorials  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  during  the  middle  ages. 
London,  1858  ff. — On  the  whole,  the  sources  in  the  Rolls  Series  are  not 
particularly  valuable  for  the  interdict;  but  this  does  not  apply  to  the 
Materials  for  the  History  of  Becket  or  to  the  Gesta  Henrici  Secundi. 
Roger  of  Wendover,  in  spite  of  inaccuracy,  is  useful  for  the  history  of  the 
Oxford  interdict.  The  Munimenta  Academiae  Oxoniensis  is  of  very  great 
value  for  the  same  interdict. 

Rotuli  chartarum,  1199-1216,  edited  by  T.  D.  Hardy.  London,  1837. 
— This  source  and  the  two  next  named  were  of  great  use  in  tracing  inter- 
d^icts  in  England.  They  contain  valuable  items  upon  the  interdict  of  1208. 

Rotuli  litter  arum  clausarum,  1204-1227,  edited  by  T.  D.  Hardy. 
London,  1833-4. 

Rotuli  litterarum  patentium,  1201-1216,  edited  by  T.  D.  Hardy. 
London,  1835. 

Rymer,  T  :  Foedera,  conventiones,  literae,  et  cujuscunque  generis  acta 
publica,  inter  reges  Angliae  et  alios  .  .  .  The  Hague,  1739-45. — Contains 
the  text  of  several  important  documents  relating  to  the  interdict  of  Eng- 
land, 1208-13. 

Sarpi,  P.:  Historia  particolare  delle  cosepassate  tra'l  Sommo  Pontefice 
Paolo  V.  e  la  serenissima  Republica  di  Venetia.  Venice,  1624,  and  often 
thereafter.  In  English  translation  (London,  1626)  as  "  History  of  the 
Quarrels  of  Pope  Paul  V  with  the  State  of  Venice." — The  most  extended 
account  of  an  interdict  that  has  come  to  the  author's  knowledge.  Very 
interesting  and  suggestive. 

Sarpi,  P.:  Apologia  adversus  oppositiones  factas  ab  illustr.  Card. 

Bellarmino  ad  tractatus  et  resolutiones  Johan.  Gersonis  circa  valorem 
excommunicationum.  Venice,  1606. — One  of  the  pamphlets  of  the  dis- 
pute over  the  interdict  of  Venice,  1606.  Discusses  the  results  of  interdict. 

Sarpi,  P.,  and  others :  Tractatus  de  interdicto  sanctitatis  Papae  Pauli  V. 
Venice,  1606.  The  reply  on  behalf  of  Venice,  composed  by  seven  theolo- 
gians, of  whom  Sarpi  was  the  chief,  to  the  papal  interdict  of  1606.  For  an 
answer  from  the  papal  side,  see  Bellarmin.  The  Tractatus,  as  well  as  the 
Apologia,  may  be  found  (in  Italian)  in  all  editions  of  Sarpi's  works. 

Songe  du  Vergier,  Le.  (Somnium  Viridarii.) — Both  in  its  French  and 
in  its  Latin  form  this  famous  dialogue  on  the  claims  of  church  and  state 
has  been  printed  by  itself;  but  it  may  be  found  in  Goldast's  "  Monarchia  " 
or  in  the  "  Traitez  des  droits  de  1'eglise  gallicane." 


170 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


St.  Bartholomew's  Hospital  Journal,  XII,  n  (August,  1905). — This 
issue  contains  a  very  valuable  bull  of  the  bishop  of  London  discovered  in 
the  cartulary  of  the  hospital. 

Stephanies,  Tornacensis  Episcopus  (Bp.  of  Tournay) :  Epistolae.  (In 
Migne:  Patr.  Lat.,  v.  211,  col.  309  ff.) 

Teulet,  A.:  Layettes  du  Tresor  des  Chartes.  Vols.  I,  II,  Paris,  1863, 
1866. — The  later  vols.,  by  other  editors,  lie  beyond  the  scope  of  this  study. 

Theiner,  A.:  Vetera  monumenta  Slavorum  meridionalium  historiam 
illustrantia  maximam  partem  nondum  edita  ex  tabulariis  Vaticanis  de- 
prompta  collecta  ac  serie  chronologica  disposita.  Rome,  1863. — Valuable, 
but  the  statements  of  the  work  are  too  brief  to  be  of  much  service. 

Tractatus  de  interdicto.     See  Sarpi,  P.,  and  others. 

Ughelli,  F.:  Italia  sacra.     Venice,  1717-22. 

Varin,  P.:  Archives  administratives  de  la  ville  de  Reims.  Paris, 
1839-48.  (In  the  French  national  "  Collection  de  Documents  Inedits".) 
— Contains  information  of  unusual  quantity  and  quality  about  the  interdict. 

Villanueva,  J.  L.:  Viage  literario  a  las  iglesias  de  Espana.  Madrid, 
Valencia,  1803-52. — Vol.  V  contains  an  important  letter  of  Innocent  III 
relative  to  an  interdict  on  Tortosa. 

Wilkins,  D. :  Concilia  Magnae  Britanniae  et  Hiberniae.     London,  1 737. 

Secondary  Works. 

Andreae,  Johannes:  Tractatus  utilissimus  de  modo  observandi  inter- 
dictum.  Magdeburg,  1483. — A  treatise  briefly  explaining  the  canonical 
law  relating  to  the  observance  of  interdict.  Its  substance  is  much  the 
same  as  that  of  any  other  work  on  canon  law. 

Arbois  de  Jubainville,  H.  d' :  Histoire  des  dues  et  des  comtes  de  Cham- 
pagne. Paris,  1859-69. — Of  some  use  in  tracing  interdicts  in  Champagne. 

Boase,  C.  W. :  Oxford.  London,  1887. — Gives  some  consideration  to 
the  Oxford  interdict,  but  is  inaccurate. 

Capefigue,  J.  B.  H.  R. :  Histoire  de  Philippe  Auguste.  Paris,  1829. 
— An  interesting  but  unreliable  general  account;  superseded  by  Davidsohn. 

Catalogue  generate  des  manuscrits  des  bibliotheques  publiques  des 
departements  [de  France].  Paris,  1849-79.  (In  t^e  Collection  de 
Documents  Inedits.) — This  and  the  Inventaires  (see  below)  give  some  in- 
dication of  the  contents  of  manuscripts  in  departmental  collections,  and  in 
several  cases  give  information  on  interdicts. 

Chauffier,  Abbe:  Lettre  Inedite  d'Innocent  III  .  .  ,  in  Bibl.  de 
1'Ecole  des  Chartes,  XXXIII,  595-605. — An  article  relating  to  the  inter- 
dict of  Brittany,  1200. 

Collectanea  Topographica  et  Genealogica.     London,  1834-43. 

Davidsohn,  Robert :  Philipp  II,  Augustus,  von  Frankreich,  und  Inge- 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  171 

borg.  Stuttgart,  1888. — An  excellent  work,  which  gives  important  details 
of  the  operation  of  the  interdict  in  France. 

Diericx,  Charles  Louis:   Memoires  sur  la  ville  de  Gand.     Gand,  1814-16. 

Dondi  dall'  Orologio,  F.  S. :  Dissertazione  sesta  sopra  PIstoria  ecclesias- 
tica  Padovana.  Padua,  1812. 

Felten,  J. :  Papst  Gregor  IX.     Freiburg  i.  B.,  1886. 

Gautier,  Th. :   Histoire  de  la  ville  de  Gap.     1844. 

Geraud,  H. :  Ingeburge  de  Danemark.  In  the  Bibl.  de  1'ficole  des 
Charles,  1844  (26  serie,  I,  pp.  3-27,  93-118). — This  study  gives  the  inter- 
dict of  France  (1200)  careful  consideration. 

Giry,  A. :  Histoire  de  la  ville  de  Saint-Omer  et  de  ses  institutions. 
Paris,  1877. — A  reliable  work;  of  use  for  the  interdict  on  Saint  Omer. 

Hefele,  C.  J.  v. :  Conciliengeschichte.  Freiburg  i.  B.,  2.  ed.,  1873  ff. — 
Of  little  value  for  the  interdict. 

Hinschius,  Paul :  Das  Kirchenrecht  der  Katholiken  und  Protestanten  in 
Deutschland:  System  des  katholischen  Kirchenrechts.  Berlin,  1869-97. 
— The  most  exhaustive  and  impartial  discussion  of  the  interdict.  Particu- 
larly excellent  upon  the  legal  aspects  of  the  subject.  The  history  of  the 
interdict  is  given  with  much  detail;  but,  being  scattered  through  several 
volumes,  it  is  not  readable.  He  gives  no  special  attention  to  the  period  of 
Innocent  III. 

Histoire  Generate  de  Languedoc.  Nouvelle  Edition.  Toulouse,  1872- 
92. — Very  useful  for  tracing  interdicts  in  southern  France,  though  inter- 
dicts receive  no  special  attention. 

Howland,  Arthur  Charles:  The  Interdict,  its  Rise  and  Development  to 
the  Pontificate  of  Alexander  III. — A  Thesis  presented  at  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania  for  the  Degree  of  Ph.  D.,  1897.  Unprinted.  The  best 
account  of  the  origin  and  development  of  the  Interdict.  The  author  evi- 
dently had  not  seen  Kober. 

Howland,  A.  C. :  The  Origin  of  the  Local  Interdict.  Printed  in  the 
Report  of  the  American  Historical  Association,  1899,  Vol.  I,  429-448. — 
A  presentation  of  the  above  in  altered  form. 

Hurter,  Friedrich  von:  Geschichte  Papst  Innocenz  III.  und  seiner 
Zeitgenossen.  Hamburg,  1836-42. — Long  the  most  important  work  on 
Innocent  III,  but  somewhat  biased  and  now  growing  antiquated. 

Inventaires  sommaires  des  archives  departementales  [de  France]  ante- 
rieures  a  1790.  Paris,  1848. 

Kober,  Franz:  Das  Interdict.  In  the  Archiv  fur  katholisches  Kirchen- 
recht, Vol.  XXI  (Neue  Folge,  XV)  (1869),  pp.  3-45,  291-341;  Vol. 
XXII  (N.  F.,  XVI)  (1869),  pp.  3-53. — This  study  treats  principally  the 
law  of  the  church  relative  to  the  interdict,  but  its  discussion  of  the  history 
is  reliable,  and  is  the  most  readable  in  existence. 

LaClede:  Histoire  Gen6rale  de  Portugal.  Paris,  1735. — Of  some  value 
for  the  interdict  on  Portugal. 


172 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Lasteyrie,  Charles  de :  L'Abbaye  de  Saint  Martial  de  Limoges.  Paris, 
1901. 

Lebeuf,  J.:  M6moires  concernant  1'Histoire  Civile  et  Ecclesiastique 
d'Auxerre  et  de  son  Ancien  Diocese,  continues  jusqu'a  nos  jours  par  M. 
Challe  et  M.  Quantin.  Auxerre  et  Paris,  1848-55. — A  scholarly  and 
helpful  work. 

Luchaire,  A. :  Innocent  III — Les  Royautes  Vassales  du  Saint-Si£ge. 
Paris,  1908. 

Luchaire,  A.:  Innocent  III — Le  Concile  de  Latran  et  la  Reforme  de 
1'Eglise.  Paris,  1908. — Contains  a  very  good  bibliography  for  the  period 
of  Innocent  III. 

Magazin  fur  Kirchengeschichte  und  Kirchenrecht  des  Nordens.  Altona, 
1792-6.  Herausgegeben  von  Friedrich  Miinter. 

Mariana,  J. :  Historiae  de  Rebus  Hispaniae  libri  XXX.  Printed  in 
Schott:  Hispania  Illustrata,  II,  IV.  Frankfort,  1603-1608. 

Marlot,  G. :  Histoire  de  la  ville,  cite,  et  universile  de  Reims,  contenant 
1'etat  civil  et  ecclesiastique  du  pays.  Reims,  1843-5. — A.  very  good  work, 
containing  a  number  of  valuable  facts  about  interdicts  in  and  near  Reims. 

Munchen,  Nicolaus:  Das  canonische  Gerichtsverfahren  und  Strafrecht. 
Cologne  and  Neuss,  1865.  Volume  II,  208-214,  contains  a  short  sketch 
of  the  history  of  the  interdict,  which  is  superseded  by  Kober  and  Hinschius. 

Norgate,  Kate:  John  Lackland.  Gives  so  excellent  a  discussion  of  the 
interdict  on  England  (1208)  that  any  additional  account,  except  of  a  few 
phases,  is  superfluous. 

Pithou,  Pierre:  De  1'origine  et  du  progres  des  Interdicts  ecclesiastiques. 
Printed  in  the  Commentaires  sur  le  Trait£  des  Libertez  de  1'Eglise  Galli- 
cane,  Paris,  1652. — For  a  long  time  this  was  the  only  history  of  the  inter- 
dict. It  is  a  short,  good  account.  Its  substance,  though  not  all  its  ideas, 
may  be  found  in  Hinschius. 

Planck,  G.  J. :  Geschichte  des  Pabstthums  in  der  abendlandischen 
Kirche  von  der  Mitte  des  neunten  Jahrhunderts  an.  Hannover,  1805. 

Prynne,  William:  An  exact  chronological  vindication  and  historical 
demonstration  of  our  British,  Roman,  Saxon,  Danish,  Norman,  English 
Kings  Supream  Ecclesiastical  Jurisdiction  over  all  Prelates,  Persons, 
Causes,  within  their  Kingdoms  and  Dominions.  London,  1666. — Useful 
for  England.  Citations  lacking. 

Raumer,  Fr.  von:  Geschichte  der  Hohenstaufen.  3.  Aufl.,  Leipzig, 
1857.  Contains  some  important  facts  about  interdicts. 

Rohricht,  R. :   Geschichte  des  Konigreichs  Jerusalem.     Innsbruck,  1898. 

Rosny,  L.  de :   Histoire  de  1'abbaye  de  Notre  Dame  de  Loos.     Lille, 

1837- 

Schulte,  Joh.  Friedrich  v:  Ueber  Kirchenstrafen.  Berlin,  1872.  Pub- 
lished as  No.  14  of  the  series  "  Deutsche  Zeit-  und  Streitfragen. " 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  I73 

Thomassin,  P. :  Ancienne  et  nouvelle  discipline  de  PEglise.  Paris, 
1688. 

Viollet,  Paul:  Histoire  des  Institutions  politiques  et  administrates  de 
la  France.  Paris,  1890-1903. 

Winkelmann,  Eduard :  Philipp  von  Schwaben  und  Otto  IV.  von  Braun- 
schweig. Leipzig,  1873,  1878. — Gives  very  satisfactory  discussions  of 
interdicts  in  the  Empire. 


INDEX. 


Absolution  from  vows,  50 

Abuse  of  interdict,  35-37,  85,  143 

Achaia,  100 

Acre,  46  n.,  49,  135 

Adolf,  Archbishop  of  Cologne,  136 

Adolf  of  Harzburg,  93 

Adrian  IV,  20  n. 

Aggravation  of  interdict,  52 

Agnes  of  Meran,  in,  120,  121,  122 

"  Aid  "  for  removal  of  interdict,  84 

Albigenses,  150 

Albricus,  knight,  27 

Alduin,  Bishop  of  Limoges,  26 

Alexander  II,  9,  20  n. 

Alexander  III,  39  n.,  47  n. 

Alexander  IV,  45  n. 

Alexander  VI,  33  n. 

Alfonso  II  of  Portugal,  149 

Alfonso,  King  of  Leon,  104 

Altars,   50,  51  n.,  73,  119;   altars 

interdicted,  47 
Altena,  136 

Amalfi,  33  n. ,  39  n.,  46  n. 
Ambassadors  affected  by  interdict, 

56,67 
Ambulatory  interdict,  2,  75,  78,  86, 

92,  93,  94,   106,  127,  136,  150, 

!5i>  I53»  156,  158 
America,  49 
Amiens,  no,  129 
Amiens,  Bishop  of,  116 
Amposta,   107 
Anacletus  II,  82 
Andelay,  32  n.,  88 
Andrew  of  Hungary,  65  n. 
Andronicus,  6 
Angelus,  15 
Anjou,  46  n. 
Antioch,  96,  134 
Anti-pope,  82 
Appeal,  148;  against  interdict,  41, 

88,  91,    113,    131;    denied,  42, 

95,   108;    disregarded,  42,  113, 

n8,  135 
Appels  comme  d'abus^  42  n. 


Aquileia,  Patriarch  of,  95 

Aragon,  33  n.,  36  n.,  46  n. 

Aries,  47  n. 

Armenia,  46  n.,  134 

Arnold,  papal  legate,  153,  156 

Arnoul,  steward  of  Terouanne,  129 

Arras,  47  n. 

Arras,  Bishop  of,   108,    116,    125, 

129 

Arthur  of  Brittany,  126 
Artois,  Count  of,  130 
Assisi,  28 

Asylum,  right  of,  34 
Auchy,  Abbot  of,  130 
Austria,  95 
Authorities  who  laid  interdict,  19; 

limitations  of  their  authority,  21, 

25 
Auxerre,  45,  47  n.,  58,  65,  80,  81, 

156,  159,  160 
Auxerre,  Bishop  of,  31,   116,  123, 

124,  125,  143,  144,  156 
Auxilius,  6 

Baldwin,    Emperor    of    Constanti- 
nople, 76 

Baldwin  of  Flanders,  88,  108 
Bamberg,  Bishop  of,  95 
Bandits,  26,  27;   see  also  Robbery 
Banishment  of  clerics,  34,  70,  115, 

*3i 

Bankers  of  Florence,  31 

Baptism,  15,  104,  114,  119 

Barren  lands,  46  n. 

Bari,  87 

Basse-Fontaine,  Abbey  of,  81 

Bavaria,  46  n.,  94 

Beauvais,  47  n. 

Beauvais,  Bishop  of,  109,  116,  123, 

124 

Becket,  Thomas  a,  28,  42 
Beggars,  see  Paupers 
Bells,  the  ringing  of,  13,  15,  18,  53, 


77, 
155, 


122, 
157 


126,    127,    132,    141. 


(175) 


176 


INDEX 


Belluno,  Bishop  of,  28  n.,  100 

Benedict  XII,  25 

Benediction   of  marriage,   14,   17, 

119 

Benevento,  46  n. 
Berengar  of  Narbonne,  35  n.,  36 
Berengar,  Archbishop  of  Tarragona, 

28  n. 

Berengaria  of  Castile,  105 
Berengaria,  Richard's  queen,  27 
Berg,  136 
Bergamo,  148 
Besancon,  Archbishop  of,  85,  112, 

118 

Betrothal,  17 
Beverly,  132 
B6ziers,  47  n. 
Blagny,  Abbot  of,  129 
Blanche  of  Castile,  58,  119 
Blanche,  Countess  of  Champagne, 

36  n.,  44,  143 
Blois,  23  n,  142 
Bodies  unburied,  60,  120 
Bodies    disinterred,    51,    57,    107, 

I5i>  159 

Boemund  of  Antioch,  134 
Bohemia,  46  n. 
Bologna,  88 
Boniface  VIII,  13,  14,   15,   16,  24 

n.,  37  n.,  48,  77 

Boniface,  Archbishop  of  Genoa,  134 
Bordeaux,  Archbishop  of,  116 
Borgo  San  Donnino,  101 
Bourges,  Archbishop  of,  125,  131 
Bouvines,  139,  142 
Brabant,  95,  140 
Bracton,  57 

Braga,  Archbishop  of,  34  n.,  148 
Brambles  placed  before  churches,  50 
Bread  and  water,  123 
Bremen,  40  n.,  60,  137 
Bribery,  65  n.,  106,  120 
Brienne,  Walter  of,  see  Walter  of 

Brienne 

Brigandage,  see  Robbery 
Brindisi,  27,  87 
Brittany,  46  n.,  125,  160 
Burgundy,  6  n.,  112 
Burgundy,  Duke  of,  101 
Burial,    canonical,    see    Canonical 

burial 

Burial  fees,  57  n.,  72,  78 
Business  uninterrupted  by  interdict, 

65,  H9 


Cahors,  Bishop  of,  131 

Cambrai,  32  n. 

Cambrai,  Bishop  of,  94,  108 

Cambridge,  146 

Canonical  burial,  17,  18,  51,  53, 
57,  60,  71,  77,  78,  104,  106, 
114,  120,  126,  139,  140  n.,  157 

Canonical  hours,  14,  77,  114,  126, 
140 

Canterbury,  46  n.,  47  n. 

Canterbury,  Archbishop  of,  46  n., 
77,  90,  92,  97 

Capitular  interdicts,  23,  144,  159 

Capua,  32  n.,  139 

Capuchins,  54 

Cardinals,  their  power  to  lay  inter- 
dict, 22 

Carthage,  47  n.,  49 

Casino,  Monte,  30 

Castello,  99 

Castile,  28,  46  n.,  86,  105 

Catania,  47  n. 

Catechumens,  15 

Cause  of  interdict  forgotten  or  un- 
known, 100 

Causes  of  interdict,  25  f. ,  and  Ap- 
pendix 

Celestin  III,  92,  100,  104  n.,  105, 
109,  in 

Cemeteries,  73,  114;  see  also  Ca- 
nonical burial 

Cesena,  25  n,  99 

Cessatio  a  divinis,  7  n.,  9 

Chalons,  Bishop  of,  143,  158 

Champagne,  44,  101,  143 

Chanting,  13 

Characteristics  of  interdict,  8 

Chartres,  23  n.,  33  n.,  142 

Chartres,  Bishop  of,  116,  123,  158 

Chaufiier,  Abbe,  125 

Children,  17 

Christmas,  15  n. 

Church  harmed  by  interdict,  36  n., 
68,  98,  1 06,  108,  131,  137,  139, 
148,  156 

Church-building  during  interdict, 
63,  78;  church  dedication,  62 

Churching  of  women,  14,  58,  114, 

"5 

Cistercians,   29,   52  n.,   71  n.,  80, 

116,  123 
Citation,  37,  38 
Citeaux,  119,  156 
Classicianus,  6 


INDEX 


177 


Clement  IV,  35  n. 

Clement  V,  64  n. 

Clerics,  banishment  of,  see  Banish- 
ment of  clerics 

Clerics  harmed  by  interdict,  69,  71, 
158;  see  also  Church 

Clergy  unshaven  and  unkempt  dur- 
ing interdict,  71 

Clermont,  35  n. 

Cluny,  112 

Cnut  of  Denmark,  in 

Coggeshall,  89,  120 

Coimbra,  44,  148 

Cologne,  31  n.,  35  n.,  45  n.,  142 

Cologne,  Archbishop  of,  35  n.,  78, 
80,  136 

Cologne,  Council  of,  48,  77 

Commerce  affected,  101 ;  see  also 
Business 

Communion,  15,  16 

Como,  Bishop  of,  102 

Compiegne,  23  n. 

Compostella,  Archbishop  of,  34  n., 
149 

Confession,  115,  126 

Confirmation,  15 

Confirmation  of  interdict  by  the 
Pope,  21,  115,  150,  156;  by  the 
state,  25 

Confiscation  of  property;  see  Prop- 
erty confiscated. 

Congrua  satisfaclio^  142 

Conrad,  Bishop  of  Hildesheim,  93 

Conrad,  Bishop  of  Wurzburg,  28 

Consanguineous  marriage  as  a  cause 
of  interdict,  28,  65  n.,  98,  104, 
ill 

Consecration  of  the  Host  during  in- 
terdict, 114 

Constance,  Empress,  101 

Conversi,  75,  8 1 

Corpus  Christi^  15  n. 

Cremona,  45  n.,  133 

Cremona,  Bishop  of,  77 

Crucifix  prostrated,  50,  140,  141 

Crusades  and  Crusaders,  66,  86,  88, 
115,  126,  129,  133,  151,  154 

Cyprus,  3i,46n.,  49,  86 

Dedication  of  churches  during  in- 
terdict, 62 

Degradation  of  clerics,  29,  52,  132 
Delegate  his  power  to  lay  interdict, 

20,  22 


Denmark,  34  n.,  45,  46  n.,  49,  80, 

138  n. 
Deprivation  of  benefices,  53,  132, 

I33»  137 
Diceto,  117 
Dieppe,  145  n. 
Dijon,  Bishop  of,  125 
Dijon,  Council  of,  22,  112 
Disinterment  of  bodies;  see  Bodies 

disinterred. 

Distribution  of  interdicts,  48 
Divorce  as  a  cause  of  interdict,  ill 
Dodart,  Saint,  50  n.,   140 
Dol,  125,  126 
Doors  closed,  13,    14,    53,   64  n., 

76,  77,  115,  120,  126,  140 
Druids,  4 
Dublin,  92 
Duration  of  interdicts,  44 

Easter,  15  n.,  114,  131 

Eastern  church,  49  n. 

Effect  of  interdict,  13,  58,  119, 
1 2O,  153,  156;  on  officia  divina, 
13;  on  sacramentals,  14;  on 
preaching,  15;  on  the  sacra- 
ments, 15;  on  canonical  burial, 
18 

Effectiveness  of  interdict,  48,  64, 
94,  106,  118,  120,  132,  136,  139, 
145,  148,  149,  151,  153,  155, 
159,  161 

Election  of  a  Pope,  19 

Ely,  Bishop  of,  77,  90,  92 

Empire,  46  nn.,  136 

England,  38,  40,  42,  46  n.,  47  nn., 
65  n.,  88,  89,  90,  139;  England 
(1208),  9  n.,  14,  15,  17,  18, 
37  n.,  38,  44  n.,  52  n.,  59,  60, 
64,  70,  76,  77,  84,  90,  145 

Episcopal  interdicts,  20,  76  n.,  107 

"  Escherte",  93 

Etampes,   115 

Eugene  III,  84  n. 

Eugene  IV,  37  n. 

Evreux,  Bishop  of,  145  n. 

Excommunicates,  13,  14,  16,  131, 
132,  141 

Excommunication,  general,  the 
predecessor  of  interdict,  4  ff.; 
severity  of,  7;  opposition  to,  7; 
changed  to  interdict,  7-8 

Excommunication,  personal,  12  n., 
118 


178 


INDEX 


Exemption  from  interdict,  76 

Exorcism,  14 

Extent  of  interdict,  46 

Extreme  unction,  15,  16,  115,  126 

Factions,  67,  71,  116,  159 

Faversham,  51  n. 

Feast-days,  interdict  suspended  on, 

15,  18,  29,  78 
Ferrara,  44,  47  n. 
Ferrara,  Bishop  of,  43 
Flanders,  25,  79,  108,  129,  130 
Fleury,  Monastery  of,  75 
Florence,  31,  33  n.,  44  n.,  47  n., 

Forgery,  55,  85,  149 

Formulas  of  interdict,  39,  113,   114 

Formulas  of  relaxation,  83,  84 

France,  47  n.,  49,  84 

France  (1200),  14,  22,  37  n.,  38, 

58,  60,  65,  76,  nof. 
Francis  of  Assisi,  28 
Frederick  II,  Emperor,  27,  33  nn., 

142 

Frederick  of  Lille,  93 
Frequency  of  interdicts,  43,  143 
Fulc,  Bishop  of  Toulouse,  154 
Fulda,  Abbot  of,  95 

Gallipoli,  87 

Gallus,  20  n.,  99 

Gap,  46  n. 

Geldern,  136 

Genoa,  47  n.,  56,  69,  133 

Geoffrey,  Archbishop  of  York,  35 
n.,  90,  91,  132 

Geoffrey  de  Mandeville,  59  n. 

Geographical  distribution  of  inter- 
dict, 48 

Gerardus  Taciolus,  100 

Germany,  48,  92,  136  f. 

Ghibellines,  136 

Gifts  to  churches  during  interdict, 

63 

Gilbert,  Bishop  of  Rochester,  67  n. 
Girgenti,  34  n.,  47  n.,  70  n. 
Gloucester,  Countess  of,  59  n. 
Government  unimpeded  during  in- 
terdict, 66 

Grace,  length  of,  37-38,  113 
Greek  Church,  49  n. 
Gregory  VII,  49 
Gregory  VIII,  39  n. 
Gregory  IX,  13,  25 


Gregory,  Cardinal  deacon,  104 
Gregory  of  Tours,  28,  50 
Guelfs,  136 

Hainault,  108 
Harzburg,  Adolph  of,  93 
Henry  of  Brabant,  95,  140 
Henry  of  Constantinople,  34  n. 
Henry,  Count  Palatine,  33  n.,  95 
Henry  II,  of  England,  28,   33  n., 

65  n.,  69,  80,  130;  Henry  III,  27 
Henry  of  Harzburg,  93 
Henry,  Mayor  of  London,  61  n. 
Henry,  Duke  of  Normandy,  34  n. 
Hereford,  Bishop  of,  90 
Heresy,  36  n.,  52,  55,  72,  73,  74, 

87,  106,  148,  150 
Heresy  as  a  cause  of  interdict,  29, 

ISO 

Hermann  of  Harzburg,  93 
Hermann  of  Thuringia,  94 
Herve.  98,  99 
Hesdin,  Prior  of,  130 
Hildesheim,  Bishop  of,  93,  136 
Hincmar,  Archbishop  of  Reims,  15, 

r7>  36 
Hincmar,  Bishop  of  Laon,   10  n. , 

17,  3.6 

Hinschius,  9  n.,  10  n.,  n  n. ,  43  n. 
Hochstaden,  136 
Holy  water,  14,  114,  115 
Holes  in  doors,  64  n. 
Holidays,  see  Feast-days 
Holy  Sepulchre,  78  n. 
Honorius  III,  155  n.,  156 
Hospitalers,  18  n.,   76  n.,  89,  107, 

127 

Hospitals,  61,  76,  78 
Hoveden,  58 

Howland,  A.  C. ,  i,  43  n.,  48 
Hubert,  Walter,  90 
Hugh  de  Brosse,  Abbot,  130 
Hugh,  Bishop  of  Liege,  140 
Hugh,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  68  n., 

119 
Hugh  Noyers,   Bishop  of  Auxerre, 

3i»  156 

Hungary,  46  n.,  65  n.,  86 
Huntingdon,  Archdeacon  of,  66  n. 
Huy,  Council  of,  140 

Images  prostrated,  50 
Immorality  as  a  cause  of  interdict, 
27  f. 


INDEX 


179 


///  articulo  mortis^  16,  114,  139 

Indulgence,  as  persuasion  to  ob- 
servance of  interdict,  54,  55 

Infidels,  33;  see  also  Saracens 

Ingeborg,  28,  no  f. 

Innocent  II,  20  n.;  Innocent  III, 
2,  3,  9,  13,  14,  16,  18,  20  n., 
21,  24  n.,  26,  27,  31,  37  n.,  43, 
44,  46  n.,  48,  49,  52  n.,  76,  80, 
81,86-163;  Innocent  IV,  36 nn., 
85;  Innocent  VI,  37  n. 

Inquisition,  32  n.,  55;  lays  inter- 
dict, 25 

Instruction  of  scholars  during  inter- 
dict, 63 

Interdict,  the  word,  8-9;  kinds  of, 
2,  19;  local,  2,  4-8;  personal, 
2  n.,  12  n.,  21,  23,  28  n.,  89  n., 
102  n.;  threats  of  (see  Threats) 

Interdicts,  duration  of,  44;  effect 
of  (see  Effect  of  interdict);  ex- 
tent of,  46;  frequency  of  (see 
Frequency);  purpose  of,  9-11 

Intcrdictumferendae  sententiae,  19, 
40;  inter  dictum  latae  sententiae, 
19,  40;  inter  dictum  par  Hale,  2 
n. ,  75 ;  interdictum  totale,  2n. ;  in- 
terdictum  proffer  honorem,  2  n. ; 
inter  dictum  propter  horror  em,  2n. 

Isabella,  Countess  of  Gloucester, 
59  n. 

Italy,  49,  86 

Ivo  of  Chartres,  17,  34  n.,  62 

erusalem,  33  n. 

esuits,  54,  55,  56 

ews,  74 

ohn    VIII,    20   n.;     John   XXII, 

47  n- 

John,  Bishop  of  Cambrai,  94 
John,  King  of  England,  26,  27,  52 

n.,  59,  64,  65  n.,  66  n.,  S&jja, 

jii*  101,  no.  y.ffi  145 
Joppa,  46  n.,  49 
Joy  at  cessation  of  interdict,  67,  84, 

121,   122 

Jiilich,  136 

Kinds  of  interdict,  2,  19 
Kober,  F.,  I,  7  n.,  43  n. 

La  Charite,  23  n.,  32  n.,  51,  57,  78 
Laity,    effect   of  interdict  on   the, 
45  n.,  70,  72,  119,  148 


Langres,  Bishop  of,  143 

Languedoc,  36  n.,  150-156 

Laon,  44,  46  n. 

Laon,  Bishop  of,  116 

Lateran,  Council  of  the,  139  n. 

Laval,  Council  of,  77 

Laying  cornerstones  during  inter- 
dict, 63 

Laying  of  the  interdict,  19,  25,  68 

Laymen  punished  for  non-observ- 
ance, 52 

Lectures  suspended  during  inter- 
dict ,146,  147 

Legal  processes  unimpeded  during 
interdict,  66 

Legates,  Papal,  20,  22,  67  n.,  83, 
84,  87,  89,  101,  103,  104,  105, 
108,  in,  120,  127,  135,  146, 

J5° 

Le  Mans,  23  n.,  126 
Length  of  interdicts,  44 
Leo  IX,  8 

Leo,  King  of  Armenia,  134 
Leon,  28,  73,  82,  86,  104 
Leopold  of  Austria,  59,  95 
Letters  of  interdict  excluded,  65  n. 
Liege,  40,  46  n.,  50,  140 
Limoges,  32  n.,  45,  67,  130,  131 
Limoges,  Council  of,  17,  26 
Limoges,  Viscount  of,  131  n. 
Lincoln,  Bishop  of,  68  n.,  119,  147 
Lincoln,  Dean  of,  91 
Lipari,  47  n. 
Local  particular  interdict,  2  n.,  47 

n.,  145  n. 
Lodi,  47  n. 
Lodi,  Bishop  of,  21 
Lombard  cities,  27,  101 
London,  26,  47  n.,  61 
London,  Bishop  of,  61  n.,  62,  77, 

90 

Louis  of  Bavaria,  32  n.,  94 
Louis  VIII,  27,  116,  119 
Louis  IX,  25,  28 
Lucca,  32  n.,  47  n. 
Luchaire,  I  n.,  89  n. 
Lucius  III,  39  n.,  62  N. 
Lupold,  93 

Lupold,  Archbishop  of  Mainz,  95 
Lyons,  Council  of,  19,  39,  68  n. 
Lyons,  Archbishop  of,  112,  118 

Magna  Charta,  27 

Maidenhead,  chapel  in,  25,  46  n. 


i8o 


INDEX 


Mainz,  Archbishop  of,  94,  95 

Malmesbury,  23  n. 

Manors  interdicted,  27 

Mantua,  45,  47  n. 

Markets,  147  n. 

Marriage,  15,  16,  56,  57,  58,  59, 
116,  119,  162;  benediction  of, 
14,  17,  119;  marriage  laws 
violated,  28,  105,  in.  See  also 
Consanguineous  marriage 

Marseilles,  96,  155 

Mass,  13,  16,54,  55,  56,  68  n.,  82, 
83,  114,  119,  131,  138,  140 

Matilda,  59 

Maundy  Thursday  during  interdict, 

IS* 

Maurienne,  Count  of,  101 

Mauritius,  Archbishop  of  Rouen,  17 

Means  of  securing  observance  of 
interdict,  50,  101,  104,  127,  132, 
140 

Meaux,  144 

Meaux,  Bishop  of,  116,  123 

Melior,  Cardinal,  108 

Metz,  21  n.,  99 

Mexico,  Council  of,  49 

Milan,  56,  139  n. 

Milan,  Archbishop  of,  21,  1 02 

Milan,  Archdeacon  of,  87,  148 

Miles  de  Nanteuil,  23  n. 

Mileto,  33  n. 

Misuse  of  interdict,  35-37,  85,  143 

Mitigation  of  interdict,  15,  16,  75, 
106,  118 

Modena,  Bishop  of,  133 

Moderation  of  interdict.  See  Miti- 
gation 

Monks  and  Monasteries,  23,  28, 
52,  53,  66  n.,  69,  75,  76,  77,  80, 
81,  96,  98,  116,  117,  119,  121 
n.,  123,  126,  129,  130,  133, 

137,  157 

Monition,  37,  H2 
Monte  Casino,  30 
Montfort,  Simon  de,  76,  154,  155 
Montpelier,  47  n. 
Mortival,  Roger  de,  45  n. 
Murder,  as  a  cause  of  interdict,  28, 

80,  136,  145,  150 
Muret,  154 

Namur,  94,  130 

Nancy,  67  n. 

Naples,  33  n.,  46  n.,  139 


Narbonne,  35  n.,  155 

Narbonne,  Archbishop  of,  36,  155 

Narni,  20  n.,  50,  193,  104 

Navarre,  99 

Neuburg,  Abbot  of,  95 

Nevers,  38,  98 

Nevers,  Count  of,  31,  8 1,  88,  156 

Nicolas  de  Rozoy,  128 

Nicolas  de  Rumigny,  127 

Nicolas  of  Tusculum,  Cardinal,  146 

Non-observance    of    interdict,   see 

Violation 
Normandy,  32  n. ,  34  n.,  46,    60, 

91,  109 
Notaries,    publication    of    interdict 

by,  41 

Noyon,  Bishop  of,  24  n.,  123,  144 
Number  of  interdicts,  43,  143 
Nuncio  withdrawn  during  interdict, 

54 

Nuns,  immoral,  as  cause  of  inter- 
,      diet,  28 

Oaths,  33,  88 

Observance  of  interdict,  116,  125, 
131,137.  See  also  Violation  of 
interdict 

Octavian,  Cardinal-Legate,  121, 
122,  123,  127 

Offertory  of  the  Mass  during  inter- 
dict, 13,  16 

Officia  divina,  13,  15,  18,  74,  126 

Olmiitz,  46  n. 

Operation  of  interdict,  50.  See 
also  Effect  of  interdict 

Ordination  during  interdict,  15,  1 6, 

153 

Origin  of  the  interdict,  2,  4-9 
Orleans,  58,  160 
Orleans,  Bishop  of,  116,  123 
Orvieto,  87 
Osimo,  96 
Otranto,  87 
Otricoli,  103 
Otto   of   Brunswick,    Emperor,  32 

nn.,  33  n.,  94,   136,    138,    139, 

140,  142 
Ours,  100 

Oviedo,  Bishop  of,  81 
Oxford,  45  n.,  145 

Palatinate,  95 

Palm  Sunday  during  interdict,  114 

Pampluna,  Bishop  of,  77,  99  n. 


INDEX 


181 


Paraments,  benediction  of,  during 
interdict,  15;  seizure  of,  as  a 
cause  of  interdict,  30 

Paris,  Bishop  of,  98,  116,  122, 
123 

Parma,  9  n.,  50,  101 

Partial  interdict,  2  n.,  75 

Passion-week  during  interdict,  114 

Paul  V,  54 

Paupers,  17,  62,  131 

Peace  of  God,  breach  of,  as  a  cause 
of  interdict,  26 

Penalties  for  non-observance  of  in- 
terdict, 52,  53 

Penance,  15,  104,  126,  139,  146 

Pentecost,  15  n. 

Perpignan,  25 

Personal  interdict,  2  n.,  12  n.,  21, 
23,  28  n.,  89  n.,  102  n. 

Personal  interests  of  churchmen 
protected  by  interdict,  34 

Peter  of  Aragon,  154 

Peter  of  Arras,  54 

Peter  of  Capua,  89,  109,  ill,  120 

Peter,  Cardinal-deacon,  101 

Peter,  Cardinal-presbyter  of  St. 
Marcellus,  135 

Peter  of  Courtenay,  Count  of 
Nevers,  31,  80,  156,  159 

Peter,  Abbot  of  Neuburg,  95 

Peter  of  Nevers,  88 

Philip  II  (Augustus),  King  of 
France,  28,  58,  65  n.,  88,  89,  98, 
101,  108,  128  n.,  141,  144,  152, 
158,  160;  Philip  IV,  42  n. ; 
Philip  VI,  25 

Philip,  Bishop  of  Beauvais,  109, 
116 

Philip  of  Namur,  94 

Philip  of  Suabia,  Emperor,  92,  94, 
95,  136,  138,  140 

Piacenza,  101,  102 

"  Pierre  Bornihores,"  25 

Pierre   de    Castelnau,  28   n.,   150, 

153 

Pilgrims,  53,  114,  126 
Pisa,   1 02 
Pithou,  Pierre,  I 
Poitiers,  Bishop  of,  117 
Poitiers,  nuns  of,  28 
Poitou,  46  n.,  47  n. 
Poland,  44  n.,  46  n.,  49 
Pollution  as  a  cause  of  interdict,  29 
Ponthieu,  Count  of,  58,  119 


Porto,  107 

Ports  guarded,  65  n. 

Portugal,  28,  34  n.,  45,  46  n.,  85, 
86,  104,  148,  149 

Praemonstratensians,  30  n.,  77 

Prague,  46  n. 

Preaching  permitted  as  a  rule,  15, 
51,  74,  78,  114 

Priest  may  not  lay  interdict,  23 

Private  gain,  as  a  motive  for  inter- 
dict, 35 

Privileges,  17,  18,44,  62  n.,  69,  71, 
75,  96,  107,  121  n.,  125,  126, 
127,  I33>  I35»  142,  I44»  J55  n-> 
157 

Procession,  during  interdict,  for- 
bidden, 132 

Prohibition  of  interdict,  76,  88 

Promotion  canceled,  63,  124 

Promulgation  of  interdict,  39,  113 

Property  confiscated,  52,  68  n.,  69, 
91,  92,  115,  130,  132,  135,  148, 
158,  1 60 

Public  opinion,  41,  48,  64,  68,  70, 
74,  79,  118,  119,  124,  131,  139, 
156 

Publication  of  interdict,  40,  41,  65 

n->  137 

Punishment  for  non-observance  of 
interdict,  51,  123,  131,  132,  133, 

137 
Purification  during  interdict,  14,  58, 

114,  115 
Purpose  of  interdict,  9-12,  63,  74, 

82,  100 

Ravenna,  Archbishop  of,  101 
Raymond  of  Toulouse,   33  n.,  59, 

150 

Raymond  Trencavel,  28  n. 

Rayner,  Legate,  105 

Reading,  146 

Reformation,  interdict  as  a  cause  of 

the,  73 

Regensburg,  35  n. 
Registers  of  deaths,  during  interdict, 

68  n. 
Regular  clergy,  23,  68  n.,  69,  71, 

126,  137.     See  also  Monks  and 

Monasteries 
Reims,  9  n.,  23  n.,   35  n.,  36,  47 

nn.,  63,  127,  128,  143 
Reims,    Archbishop    of,     79,    108, 

112,  116,  120,  123,  127 


182 


INDEX 


Relaxation  of  interdict,  67,  70,  81, 
100,   102,   103,   104,    106,    107, 

109,     IIO,     Il8,     122,    133,     141, 

146,  147, 149,  151 

Relics,  30,  140 

Remissness  of  clergy,  as  a  result  of 

interdict,  71 

Renaud  of  Noyon,  24  n. 
Reparation  for  damage,  70,  83,  90, 

121,  122,  131,  142,  149 
Republications  of  interdict,  41,  52, 

117,  130,  131,  133,  140,  158 
Reserved  cases,  117,  123 
Resistance  to  interdict,  65,  68,  115, 

I31*  H9 
Reward  for  observance  of  interdict, 

54.  125 
Richard  I,  King  of  England,  27, 

32  n.,  65  n.,  88,  89,  90,  no 
Richard  Furmi,  58 
Riez,  Bishop  of,  153  n. 
Rimini,  47  n. 
Robber-barons,  26 
Robbery,  as   a  cause  of   interdict, 

26,  29,  30,  80,  81,  87,  142 
Robert  of  Rouen,  36 
Rochester,  Bishop  of,  67  n.,  90 
Roger,   Cardinal,  presbyter  of    St. 

Anastasia,  142 
Roger  de  Mortival,  46  n. 
Roger  of  Farmers,  84 
Roger  de  Rozoy,  128 
Roman  law  and  the  interdict,  5 
Rome,  47  n.,  101 
Rosello,  Bishop  of,  34  n. 
Rouen,  24  n.,  32  n.,  36,  45,  46  n., 

88,  96,  144 
Rouen,  Archbishop  of,  30  n.,  42, 

88,  91,  117 
Rousselin,  Viscount  of   Marseilles, 

155 

Rozoy,  Roger  de,  128 
Rumigny,  Nicholas  de,  127 
Rupino,  134 

Sacramentals,  during  interdict,  13, 

H 
Sacraments,    during   interdict,    15, 

73,  104,  115,  162 

Saint  Amand,  Chronicle  of,  73,  119 
Saint  Ambrose,  Abbot  of,  148 
Saint  Anastasia,  Cardinal  of,  142 
Saint  Anastasius,  Abbot  of,  93 
Saint  Angelus,  104 


Saint  Anianus,  Canons  of,  162 
Saint  Bartholomew's  Hospital,  61, 

78 

Saint  Bertin,  129 
Saint  Corneille,  23  n. 
Saint  Denis,  6  n.,  112 
Saint  Dodart,  50  n. ;  140 
Saint  Euverte  (Orleans)  66  n. 
Saint  Floribert,  51  n. 
Saint  Genevieve,  Abbot  of,  142 
Saint  George  (Genoa),  47  n. 
Saint  Germain  des  Pres,  117,  157 
Saint  Gilles,  Council  of,  151 
Saint  Lambert,  141 
Saint  Julian  (Auxerre),  157 
Saint  Leger-en-Iveline,  122 
Saint  Maldaberta,  50  n. 
Saint  Marcellus,  Cardinal  of,  135 
Saint  Martial  (Limoges),  130 
Saint  Omer,  129 

Saint  Peter  de  Curia  (LeMans),  127 
Saint  Praxedis,  Cardinal  of,  135 
Saint  Priscus,  Cardinal  of,  121 
Saint  Remi,  112 
Saint  Salvator  (Limoges),  131  n. 
Saint  Sixtus  (Cremona),  133 
Saint  Victor,  20  n. ,  96,  98 
Salerno,  Archbishop  of,  65  n.,  92 
Salzburg,  Archbishop  of,  95,  96  n. 
Sancho  of  Portugal,  148 
Sancta  Maria  in  Via  Lata,  Cardinal 

of,  101 

Santa  Sabina,  Cardinal  of,  31 
Saracens,  33  n.,  74,  106 
Sarpi,  P.,  54,  72 
Satisfaction,    141,    142,    145,    148; 

see  also  Congrua  satisfactio. 
Savonarola,  33  n. 
Savoy,  Duke  of,  67  n. 
Schleswig,  Bishop  of,  34  n.,  137 
Scholars,  during  interdict,  63,  146 
Scotland,  46  n.,  49,  66  n. 
Seez,  Bishop  of,  35  n.,  91 
Senlis,  Bishop  of,  116 
Sens,  Archbishop  of,  91,  124,  143, 

158,  159,  160,  161 
Sentence  of  interdict,  39,  114;  see 

also  Formulas  of  interdict 
Sicily,  54 

Silvester,  Bishop  of  Seez,  91 
Simon  de  Montfort,  76,  154,  155 
Simony,  as  a  cause  of  interdict,  28 
Soffridus,  Cardinal-presbyter  of  St. 

Praxedis,  135 


INDEX 


Soil  made  barren  by  interdict,  46  n. 

Soissons,  23  n.,  36,  42 

Soissons,  Bishop  of,  116,  122,  143 

Sorcery,  148 

Spain,  49,  67  n. 

"Spigant,"96 

Stephen  of  Burgundy,  85,  100 

Stephen  Langton,  77 

Stephen  of  Noyon,  144 

Stephen  of  Tournay,  73,  79,  108 

Steppes,  141 

Strangers,  17,  67;  see  also  Travelers 

Suburbs  interdicted  with  a  city,  21, 

46,  51 
Suspension,   29,    52,    53    n.,    123, 

125,  131,  133,  147 
Sutri,  Bishop  of,  93 
Sybil,  Queen  of  Sicily,  80,  92 
Synodal  interdicts,  22 

Tarasia  of  Portugal,  104 

Tarragona,  Archbishop  of,  28  n., 
33  n.,  36  n. 

Taxation,  as  a  cause  of  interdict, 
3i,  36,  37,  90,  132,  133,  US, 
153;  taxation  during  interdict, 
66,  67;  evaded  by  means  of  in- 
terdict, 35,  36-37 

Templars,  21  n. ,  18  n.,  44,  76  n., 
78,  89,  135 

Terms  of  relaxation,  83,  121,  136, 
141,  146,  151,  153,  159 

Territorial  extent  of  interdicts,  46 

Terouanne,  Bishop  of,  108,  116 

Tertiaries,  75 

Teutons,  the,  and  the  interdict,  6 

Theatines,  55,  56 

Thddise,  Papal  Legate,  153 

Theobald  Walter,  59  n. 

Thibaut  IV,  of  Champagne,  143 

Threats  of  interdict,  43,  65,  68,  69, 
86,  106  n.,  130  n. 

Thuringia,  94 

Tithes,  failure  to  pay,  as  a  cause  of 
interdict,  31,  35  n.,  74,  107 

Toledo,  47  n.,  49  n. 

Tortona,  99 

Tortosa,  47  n.,  107 

Toulouse,  9  n.,  45  n.,  47  n.,  150 

Tournaments  forbidden  on  pain  of 
interdict,  26,  80 

Tournay,  Bishop  of,  73,  79,  108 

Tours,  Archbishop  of,  126 

Trade,  during  interdict,  63,  101,  119 


Travelers  affected  by  interdict,  67, 

68  n.,  119 
Treaty  with  infidels,  as  a  cause  of 

interdict,  32-33 
Trent,  Council  of,  21,  22,  25 
Treviso,  44  n.,  100 
Trier,  Council  of,  81 
Troyes,  Bishop  of,  143 
Tuscan  League,  102,  104 
Tusculum,  Cardinal-bishop  of,  146 

Ugo,  Vicar,  93 

Urban  II,  20  n. 

Urban  III,  39  n. 

Urbino,  45  n.,  72  n. 

Usque  ad  congruam  satisfactionem, 

ii  n.,  96,  101,  129,  142 
Usury,  19,  78  n. 

Vagrancy  suppressed  by  means  of 

interdict,  26 
Vallemagne,  27 
Venddme,  17,  62 
Venice   (1309),   65,   66  n;   Venice 

(1606),  40,    54,   67  n.,    72,  74, 

82 

Verdun,  82 

Verona,  47  n.,  84  n.,  86 
Vestibules  of  churches,  use  of  dur- 
ing interdict,  114,  115 
Vezelai,  Monastery  of,  31,  98,  112, 

122,  144 
Viaticum,  during  interdict,  13,  119, 

126,  140  n. 
Vice   increased    by    interdict,    72, 

156 

Victor  IV,  82 

Vienne,  Archbishop  of,  112,  118 
Vienne,  Council  of,  113 
Violation  of  interdict,   44,   50,  96, 

107,    116,    125,    127,    130,    131, 

.133,  135,  137,  155,  !59,  162 

Violation  of  vows,  as  a  cause  of  in- 
terdict, 33 

Visitation  of  churches  during  inter- 
dict, 63 

Viterbo,  103 

Vitorchiano,  104 

Voices  subdued  during  interdict,  13, 
14,  114 

Vows,  violation  of,  33 

Waldemar,  Bishop  of  Schleswig, 
34  n.,  137 


184  INDEX 

Wales,  32  n.,  49  William  of  Scotland,  66  n. 

Walter  of  Brienne,  27,  87  Winchester,  Bishop  of,  66  n.,  91 

Walter,  Archbishop  of  Rouen,  117  Worcester,  Bishop  of,  77,  90 

War  hindered  by  interdict,  66  n.  Wurzburg,   Bishop  of,    n   n.,    28, 

Warning  of  interdict,  37,  105  47  n.,  93,  95,  136,  138  n. 

Warwick,  William  of,  59  n. 

Westminster,  146  y    ,       g 

"  Wicel  de  Berc  ",  92  >rk'  4  >  n'>  9°'  '• 

William,  Bishop  of  Auxerre,  163  n. 

William  of  Montpellier,  76  Zamora,  Bishop  of,  104  n.,  149 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 


Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


«1AY241963 


H4 

OCTI7BS3 


Fc         ',164 


iSE^ 


41364- 


REC'D  LO 


151964 

REC'D  LD 


LD  21-100m-ll,'49(B7146sl6)476 


253729 


